University of Virginia Library

Visitors Receive Woody Coeducation Report

Two student petitions were
received by the Board of Visitors
but no action was taken on them.
One requested an open meeting
with the visitors and was presented
to President Shannon's office on
October 29. A second petition
calling for co-education at the
University was received on behalf
of the visitors by Weldon, Cooper,
secretary of The Board of Visitors,
on Friday afternoon. A rally
supporting the petition took place
in front of Pavilion VIII, prior to
Mr. Cooper's acceptance of the
petition. Each petition had
approximately 3000 signatures.

Dean T. Braxton Woody
spearheading a seven member
committee, authorized by the
President to engage in a study of
the need for coeducation at the
University, released a 74 page
report to the Board of Visitors this
past weekend affirming the need
for coeducation at the University.

The report opened by testing
the opinions of various interest
groups. Beginning from the
standpoint of legality, the report
stated, that while there was no
positive evidence that a court case
could force coeducation to occur,
that it was nevertheless an
important possibility to consider.
The committee summed up the
legal opinion by saying, "The
problem of discrimination therefore
has legal as well as moral
implications."

700 faculty members were
tapped for their thoughts on
coeducation Of these 700,157
replied, 141 favored coeducation,
nine dissented and seven had no
strong feelings.

Statements of faculty members
reflected their academic as well as
social concern for the University.

Other men considered the
weekend problem, the failure to
understand the other sex, and the
academic stimulus that women can
offer.

The dissenting members of the
faculty ended to be satisfied with
the status quo, believing that the
state offers adequate educational
opportunities at the present time.
Out of the 157 professors, only two
expressed a concern that the
admission of large numbers of
women might harm the Honor
System.

A poll of the entire student
body was not deemed feasible by
the committee, although they
expressed their deep interest in
student attitudes. The committee
therefore polled student opinion
through the leadership of the major
organizations and honoraries.

Contacted were the President of
the Student Council, the Chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, and the
Presidents of ODK, The Raven
Society, and the Lychnos Society.

Alumni were the last major
group to be polled and
approximately 40,000 were
contacted. Of these 98 responded,
29 approved of coeducation, 69
were in disagreement with the
proposal.

Following the section on
opinions came a study, of
discrimination, questioning not
necessarily the legality of the
present situation, since it has not
been tested, but the moral
defensibility of discrimination.
Regarding the woman as a taxpayer
of the state, the report continued,
is perhaps the strongest argument
for allowing her to attend the state
school of her choice.

Recognization of the changing
roles of women in the society
provided another argument for
coeducation.

The committee also rejected the
concept of separate but equal by
saying, "We have not compared
that institution (Mary Washington)
to the College at Charlottesville and
found one inferior to the other.
indeed we view such a comparison
as beyond our competence. We also
view it as irrelevant. Whatever the
qualities of the two schools, the
fact remains that there are
differences."

An "irrevocable" trend towards
coeducation seems to be apparent
in the present society and the
committee ended its section on
discrimination with the statement:

A section on academic
advantages came to several
conclusions. First was that any such
advantages were moot, and that
while there were those who
disagreed, the majority of the
faculty and students felt that
benefits would be derived from
coed classes.

Large universities as compared
to their small counterparts offer
advantages because of the monies
available for equipment, professors,
and extensive library facilities. The
committee felt that women who
desired to attend a large institution
ought to have the opportunity.

They further felt that if growth,
on a large scale was one of the
options for the future of the
University, what better was there to
grow, than to accept large numbers
of highly qualified women.

Equally as debatable as the
academic advantages of
coeducation, are the social
advantages. The committee felt,
however that with the present
admissions standards, only the
intellectual elite of the women
would be choses causing, "little
danger of an invasion of social
butterflies. Also, with our present
high academic standards, our
increasing number of Dean's list
students, and our weeding out of
the poorly motivated, the number
"party boys" on the Grounds is
decreasing." Finishing the main
body of the report was a discussion
of the disadvantages of
coeducation, and five major areas
were indicated.

The committee felt that
coeducation might have some effect
on the Honor System. A report
from the Honor Committee in the
appendix of the report is highly
unfavorable towards coeducation
due to a statistical survey which
indicates that incidents of cheating
are higher at coeducational
institutions. In separate institutions
however the statistics show that
women cheat less than men.

A questionnaire sent to other
colleges with Honor Systems
revealed,

Coeducation of the College
might adversely affect the women's
colleges, as well as arouse the
animosity of the student body and
particularly the Alumni. Because of
the poor response of the Alumni
and the rather sparse student
opinions, the committee could only
conjecture as to what might be the
reaction to women, "with their
sororities, mini-skirted cheer
leaders, baton twirling majorettes,
beauty queens, floats and pageants,
they would destroy the ethos of
Mr. Jefferson's University and
transform it into just another
State-U.

Finally the committee felt that
for those men who wanted a
separate education without the
military atmosphere of the Virginia
Military Institute, there would be
no state supported school he could
attend.

Eight of the nine members
concluded the report with the
following statements;