University of Virginia Library

Letters: Aspects Of Woody Report Questioned

At the risk of siding with an
unpopular, losing cause at a late
date, I would like to call attention
to a few aspects of the
Woody Report on The Admission
of Women to the College
which, it seems to me, have
received little attention. From
the outset, it should be said
that, for better or worse, the
concept of separate but equal
educational facilities for the two
sexes is likely to be ruled illegal.

The various proponents of
coeducation claim wider support
for their cause than it
appears exists. The Committee
appointed by Mr. Shannon
sought to garner the views of
three groups-students, faculty,
and alumni. Or so they say.
Their poll of 700 faculty members
resulted in 157 replies, "a
ratio of roughly 15 to 1 in favor
of coeducation." Or, this is
roughly one in five who feels
strongly enough about the matter
to reply-hardly an adequate
response on which to base favorable
conclusions.

"It was not deemed feasible
to poll the entire student
body," although one might well
wonder why not, since the Student
Council seems to be able to
do so for Judiciary Committee,
Honor Committee, and Council
elections. And when the issue
was raised on a recent ballot
with student initiative, it did
not have the advantage of an
open airing of its merits and
demerits. Most of the appeal of
the issue seemed to have a
physical basis.

Over one-fourth of the published
Woody Report is devoted
to the views of the Honor Committee
on the subject as it relates
to the Honor System. The
ultimate statement of the Honor
Committee's well-documented
study is that "our principal and
final conclusion is that it is not
in the best interests of the
Honor System to make the University
of Virginia coeducational,"
noting the position of
one study cited that "one must
also recognize that, in terms of
relative effectiveness, an honor
system at a co-ed school is
slightly less than half as effective
as an honor system in an all
male school." One would hope
that the effects of this much
heralded change on what is one
of the best examples of student
self-government to be found
anywhere, one which has been
the most distinctive feature of
the University and which, perhaps,
instills a system of values
superior to the achieve-at-any-cost-and-get-ahead
lessons of
other educational institutions,
would merit more than back
page coverage in The Cavalier
Daily.

The greater farce is the "polling
of the alumni." Supposedly
the committee which found the
polling of 9,000+ students in
Charlottesville unfeasible saw no
reason why it could not tabulate
the advice of 40,000+ alumni
scattered over the face of the
globe. (Or did it really expect to
receive advice?) Were I to poll
the University's alumni on a
subject I felt critically important
to the development of the
University, I would send out a
carefully worded, professionally
drawn questionnaire by special
mailing. Too expensive? Ask the
staff of the Alumni News to
mail such inquiry to their subscribers
with their current issue,
as these are the alumni with a
demonstrated concern for the
University. But to invite response
in a four page pamphlet
of limited interest and substance,
published by the local
authority on five minute
walking radii would not seem to
be the answer. I have yet to find
an alumnus of the University
(having now talked to many
who saw the announcement).
Most indicated that they had no
familiarity with the publication?
others, that it was most definitely
a round file item. Given its
bias, the committee does not
place as much store by the fact
that the small sample responding
oppose coeducation
by more than two to one as it
does by the faculty response.
Perhaps a mistake, given the
significance of alumni contribution
to the development of
University projects. But, "the
Committee is forced to conclude
that the overwhelming
majority have no strong feeling
on the subject." Mr. Woody,
you know better! From whence
our student council? It would
seem inconceivable that the
committee would not question
its polling methods rather than
the interest, whether for or
against coeducation, of the University's
alumni. Perhaps donations
in future years will more
forcefully bring home the cost
of the inept or dishonest lip
service given the views of the
men who are the University's
reputation.

Nor has there been any
passing reference which I can
locate in our student newspaper
of the dissenting report of one
member of the committee, Mr.
Julian Bishko, whose remarks
seem to be less colored by preconceived
notions (which are
generally of a social rather than
an academic nature). The main
import of his argument is that
there is serious reason to believe
that the additional costs engendered
by the coeducation of the
college would preclude the necessary
expenditures to raise the
University to "one of the first
rank nationally." With a mushrooming
enrollment that seems
to be constantly revised upward
the question of quantity vs.
quality is very real. The bond
issue will not solve all of our
problems by any means. And
this state, just coming out of a
pay-as-you-go fog, has not been
notorious for its educational expenditures.
And here, the continued
support of the University's
alumni becomes even
more important to preserve existing
quality. Progress is not inevitable,
unfortunately. Per capita
expenditures may decrease
rather than keep pace with enrollment.
Coeducation may
make many alumni reconsider
the annual soft sell on the continued
beauty of the Lawn, the
appeal to a fictional sense of
community and promised
athletic grandeur that produces
dollars in the cash box for
development.

Concerning the matter of
separate but equal, it would be
heartening if the University had,
in recent years, exhibited the
same concern for the black male
citizens of the state that it
evidences for the girls. It is
doubtful that the education of
the women of Virginia at
Charlottesville is nearly as important,
particularly in the professional
schools, as offering the
state's finest to a much more
neglected segment of the population
with fewer alternatives.
Perhaps the University's high
councils have made a decision to
shift the emphasis of undergraduate
education away from a
role in which it has met with
success. That role, as stated in
1819, was to "harmonize and
promote the interests of agriculture,
manufactures and commerce,
and by well informed
views of political economy to
give scope to the public industry."
And certainly the University
must continue to offer a
broadening liberal arts background
to citizens of the state
who take their places in "the
world of practical affairs" following
the taking of their degrees.
The vast majority of the
University's graduates will continue
to be businessmen if male
and housewives if female. A
community of scholars feeding
other communities of scholars is
certainly a secondary function
of a state university, and it
would seem that primary emphasis
would be placed on the
education of those to whom a
college degree is the entree to
previously unknown opportunity
rather than a nice thing
to have at the bridge table between
changing diapers. Or perhaps
we have the resources to
educate everyone if we lower
requirements sufficiently.

The strongest arguments
in favor of coeducation
are apparently more social than
academic. Our report takes the
position that the academic advantages
are questionable,
"moot", although the great deal
of space devoted to favorable
views makes one wonder how
the committee arrived at its
neutral position. In the social
area, we have been told that the
University student lacks simple
information on the opposite
sex, that we engage in "frantic
weekend body grabbing in an
alcoholic haze," that we "develop
or retain unchallenged
myths of male superiority," and
that much "frustration expressed
directly via physical
damage to furniture and living
quarters and/or indirectly via
drinking and depressed withdrawal
is related to the feeling
that a girl isn't available to date
and talk to during the week."
And collective sanity can be
restored with a few library
dates, sodas at Newcomb Hall,
Homecoming queens, pompom
girls at basketball games, sorority/fraternity
sings, pinning
ceremonies, ad nauseum. Have any
of these people spent a week at
the schools we seek to emulate?
(Those being, contrary to our
Ivy League-Seven Sisters fixation,
not Yale, Princeton and
Vassar, but perhaps Vanderbilt
and Duke? Or more likely,
southern state universities.) If
this is the true meaningful dialogue
between the sexes which
we lack, leaving us all with Don
Juan complexes, I, for one,
would rather retire to a monastery.
There is probably something
to the argument that the
casual, frivolous relationships
one falls into by constant contact
have less lasting impact and
intensity than those which require
some cultivation.

I would hope that before we
become the fiftieth rider of the
bandwagon of coeducation our
Board of Visitors would give
some thought to what has made
this institution unique and what
effects coeducation will have on
this uniqueness. Can it in good
faith accept apathy as the reason
for the lack of response
from those most intimately involved
with the future of the
University?

Properly understood, the legacy
of this university is not that
of the rich, semi-literate, insensitive
Southern playboy. It is
rather, the legacy of the nation's
most articulate spokesman for
human rights, of unequaled
student self-determination, of
intimate and respectful
student/faculty-communication,
of a sense of values that prizes
honesty in human relationships
more than personal advantage,
and that believes that "here we
are not afraid to follow the
truth as far as it may lead us,
nor to tolerate error, so long as
reason is left free to combat it."
All are very contemporary goals
for most. Here they are our
traditions. The institution in
which I have spent more than
five years is a very different one
from that which I am told
exists. It is one which is fondly
remembered by those who
formed the values which shape
their actions in this community.
The inevitable increases in size,
greatly augmented by coeducation,
further change the
complexion of the student
body. They make it all the more
likely that this great intellectual
experiment will become but
another of the many impersonal
degree factories with graduate
school "names" as remote as
their books, with vying interest
groups so caught up in their
particularistic concerns that
they never pause to realize the
benefit of the rich legacy which
is theirs.

There are alternatives available
which would preserve the
intimacy of the University, the
sense of community, the true
"meaningful dialogue" between
the various elements which
comprise the University. Somewhere
there are resident college
studies buried in a mass of
paperwork. The segmented,
compartmentalized university
with "circles of concern" is
alien to our being. Continued
social and intellectual intercourse
which is physically
represented by the design for
the Lawn is imperative if the
University is to realize its
original goals and not become a
carbon copy of the miserable
failures offering nothing but
frustration to their students.
Why abandon a successful and
unique system at a time when
its highest goals seem to be
almost attained?