University of Virginia Library

'Risque' Humor Livens Debate With Princeton

On Coeducation

By Anson Franklin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Legal, social and academic
arguments interspersed with often
risque humor were used in considering
the merits of coeducation
at the University during Friday
night's debate between the University
and Princeton.

The debate, held in Gilmer
Hall, was conducted in two parts,
with first Princeton and then
University debaters arguing the
affirmative.

"Important Positions"

Points for the affirmative emphasized
by Princeton debaters
Bill Keettel and Jack Smiley
were that women were rising
into important managerial positions
and needed education as
extensive as that the men were
getting.

"In the United States," said
Mr. Keettel, "women are moving
out of secretarial positions and
into managerial posts. . . . By
declining to educate women,
society may be losing a talent
that is not found at this University,
at Princeton, or anywhere
else."

Both Mr. Keettel and Mr.
Smiley answered arguments that
the University could not afford
the expense of expanding into
a coeducational institution by
proposing that instead of starting
anew, the University might just
move an already established
woman's college to the grounds.

That institution's assets, such
as professors and their library,
could augment the University's
facilities, they said, and money
received from the sale of the
woman's college campus could be
used to finance the transfer.

"Denied Vote"

They refuted the argument
that Mr. Jefferson intended that
the University be for men by saying,
"Mr. Jefferson also designed
the Constitution, which denied
women the vote."

The social aspect was a
dominant argument for both
sides. Princeton emphasized the
problems and expense involved
in either bringing a date to the
Grounds or going to a woman's
school.

Dixie Howell, who along with
John Crossen argued the negative
for the University, countered
by asking, "After all, isn't getting
there half the fun?"

Princeton retorted, "It had better
be, because it takes half the
time."

The Princeton debaters also
argued that, since male students
will be dealing with women nearly
every day of their lives, they
should start learning how on a
campus with women students.

One of the University debaters
observed, "We haven't heard any
adverse reports from our alumni
that women scare them or anything."

Seven-Day Weekend

In addition to arguing that
Princeton had not sufficiently established
the need for coeducation,
Mr. Howell and Mr. Crossen
said that women would distract
the men from their studies, creating
a "seven-day weekend at the
University."

Mr. Howell forecast the loss
of tradition here if women were
admitted.

In the second debate, the two
Princeton students switched roles
and argued the negative viewpoint
while Dennis Unkovi and
Hank Chase argued the affirmative
for the University.

Mr. Unkovi called non-coeducation
a violation of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, which forbade
discrimination by sex.

Mr. Chase said, "Girls should
be allowed to wander around the
Grounds and make their asinine
comments simply and solely for
the psychological and sensual
amusement of the male population."

His comment was in the same
vein as a large portion of both
debates. The often risque humor
and verbal barbs were part of the
style regularly used by Princeton
and other debating teams. According
to Mr. Smiley, such an
approach gets away from dry debate
while it still covers the pertinent
points.