University of Virginia Library

Council Rejects Filing Legal Brief
Backing Girls Against University

By Peter Shea
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

A motion calling for a legal brief to be
filed in support of the four female
plaintiffs in the segregation suit against
the University was defeated by one vote
by the Student Council at last night's
meeting.

The measure, introduced by Councilman
Tom Gardner, asked that "the
Student Council of the University...enter
an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the four
plaintiffs" before the three-judge panel which is
to hear the case against the University on
September 29.

Mr. Gardner explained that an Amicus
Curiae, brief is often filed by persons who will
be vastly affected by the decision of a case. He
added that the attorneys for the women
involved "thought it would be helpful for the
case."

According to the rough outline drawn up in
Mr. Gardner's motion, the brief would past
Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. The
Topeka, Kansas Board of Education (1954) that
made any discrimination due to race or sex
illegal.

Mr. Gardner charged that the February 1969
resolution by the Board of Visitors promised
that nothing would curtail the enrollment of
males. If this were to possibly be done, he
stated, it meant that the Board had to be
establishing a quota system for the admission of
women.

Council Secretary Kevin Mannix concurred
with Mr. Gardner, saying "The report will set
up a quota system."

An admission system based on such a quota
system is constitutionally illegal.

Former Council President Ron Hickman,
citing the University's anticipated defense in
the case, voiced opposition to the motion.

Mr. Hickman said that there would be more
benefit to the University if the system were not
thrown completely open. He felt that the
number of out-of-state students would have to
be drastically reduced, thus having an adverse
effect on the quality of the student body.

Mr. Hickman is an out-of-state student.

Charles Majors spoke against the motion but
on different grounds. A Law School
representative, he felt that the objective of the
Student Council was to open the channels of
communication between itself and the Board of
Visitors.

By filing such a legal brief, he felt the
Council could anger the Board and that the
next time the Council desired to confer with
the Visitors about a change, "the Board would
just say 'File a brief and we'll listen to you in
court.' "

Former Councilman Walker Chandler,
speaking from the floor, advised the Council
that the "report on coeducation is a front to
buy time. They want a long transition
program."

Another Law representative, Ed Finch urged
the group to "wait until the court decides that
it is a quota system. We don't know the
of the case."

He agreed that the Council should express
its views to the Board but through other
channels. "Pass a resolution but don't enter a
court case."

The close vote was 11-10 against the
motion. Council President 'Bud' Ogle cast his
vote in favor of the resolution, thus creating a
. However, rules state that a motion must
have a majority in order to be adopted.

Mr. Gardner then submitted a second
resolution to be considered next week that will
urge that a non-quota system be established for
admission on a totally equal basis without
regard to sex.

In other action taken last night, the Council
adopted a motion recommending that Tim
Bird, Ray Gavins and George Taylor, or a
replacement for Mr. Taylor chosen by the Black
Students for Freedom, be appointed to the
Committee on Black Studies. It was pointed
out that the co-chairmen of the committee,
Dean David Shannon and Paul Gaston, were in
favor of the appointments.

The measure passed easily.