University of Virginia Library

coeducation may cause
transfer discrimination

news analysis

by michael russell
cavalier daily staff writer

Coeducation at the University as it
gradually evolves over the next few years
may practice discrimination in transfer
admissions policies against the women in
Virginia's State institutions.

The charge was leveled in an editorial
which appeared in the September 22 issue
of "The Bullet," the student newspaper
at Mary Washington College. The editorial
was written by Mary Ann Burns, the
managing editor of the paper, and
charged:

"The Board of Visitors will announce
in October its plan for the 1970
coeducating the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville. According to a reliable
source within the University, indications
are that the plan for 1970 will give
preference to out-of-state women transfer
applicants to the undergraduate college of
arts and sciences, as opposed to giving
preference to in-state women transfers."

"What this means to MWC students, in
particular, is that although the college has
a legal status which no other state college
enjoys - the coordinate college of the
University of Virginia - the women of
this college will not be given transfer
preference. In fact, if the proposal is
enacted, it is possible that MWC liberal
arts students will not enjoy transfer
privileges in 1970 at all."

Miss Burns' assertions are substantiated
by the policies and statements
made by officials at the University
concerning the future prospects of
coeducation.

In The Cavalier Daily of September 23
there appear a series of articles surrounding
the plans for coeducation. Frank L.
Hereford, the University Provost, was
interviewed in the lead story in that issue,
and his statements deny that there will be
quotas established on the number of
women who will be admitted to the
College. Instead he talks about projections
on "how many women would be
qualified for admissions and would come
here with no restrictions." His attempt to
refute the quota system, however, falls
short in light of other statements.

As an example, one of the major
sources of female applicants will be the
annual increase of state women attending
colleges. In the past these women have
been absorbed by Mary Washington, but
the future plans of Mary Washington call
for continuation of education without an
increase in enrollment. Coeducation in
part means that the same percentage of
women will be educated in state institutions,
rather than an increased number of
women between Mary Washington and
the University.

Mr. Hereford further asserts that the
plans for coeducation have been laid such
that the University will not decrease the
number of men which it enrolls every
year. The coeducation will occur therefore
among the annual increase in the
college enrollment and from transfer
students (mostly in their third year).
According the Mr. Hereford:

"...we don't feel it would be proper
for the University to admit women in
such numbers as to be damaging to other
state institutions. We are part of an
overall state system and must act
accordingly.

"With coeducation, there are indications
we shall have a tremendous number
of applications from other state institutions,
and we shall probably have to limit
female transfers to the University as well
as continue accommodating the same
number of men here, in order to prevent
any damage to other state schools."

These statements lead to a positive
affirmation of Miss Burns' charge later in
her editorial that, "The rationale for this
potential policy, according to the University
source, is that when coeducation
begins at Charlottesville, enrollment and
the quality of students at MWC will
decline. The Board of Visitors is very
concerned about the status of MWC, and
is considering this discriminatory means
to maintain the quality of the college."

Miss Burns' last statement is her chief
concern in bringing this matter to light.
For some time women at Mary Washington
have felt that they were attending a
school which because of its lesser budget,
was unequal in facilities and instruction
to the major base of the University. The
concern for an equal education led to the
initial drive on the part of students at
Mary Washington and at the University
for coeducation of the Charlottesville
school.

Effectively what Mr. Hereford's and
the Board's statements and policies do is
to limit the women who attend Mary
Washington from the outset of their
college education to Mary Washington. If
they find the school unsatisfactory or
inferior, they cannot transfer to another
state institution (and particularly the
University) because their transfer is seen
as harming Mary Washington. On the
other hand, out-of-state student women
who wish to transfer to the University on
an equal basis with men (keeping in mind
of course that the number of men will in
no instances be limited) have a greater
probability of being admitted than
women in our own state system.

Thus the students who initially began
the push for coeducation because of the
educational imbalance of the system will
not be admitted on an equal basis because
the Visitors fear that the imbalance will
increase.

Miss Burns sums up in her editorial
possibly the best and most equitable way
of making the educational system in the
state equally satisfactory for both men
and women:

"The Board of Visitors is concerned
with our status. In order to protect the
level of enrollment and the quality of
students, the Board has discussed (again,
according to the UVA source) the
proposal that women from MWC not be
accepted as transfer students to the
liberal arts college. But the way to
maintain the status of MWC, and surely
the way to improve the status of MWC, is
not to wall us in, to prevent us from
attending the University of Charlottesville.
Rather, it is to pay the professors
more salary, allot more funds to MWC,
build more facilities, and ultimately, if an
adequate coordinate system cannot be
attained, to co educate MWC and perhaps
sever ties with UVA."