The Cavalier daily. :: Monday, February 10, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

Any hopes that the Board of Visitors,
will radically alter the chance for a
significantly co-educational University of
Virginia for the next academic year or the
near future should be sufficiently dispelled
when it makes public a preliminary
feasibility report after meeting this
weekend.

At its December meeting the Board took
no action on the need study for coeducation
headed by Dean Woody (they "received"
the report but no mention was made of
approval) but did request President Shannon
to establish a committee to research the
feasibility of coeducation and make a
report at the next Board meeting in
February. The Board's inaction on this and
other important student issues (a proposal
for student control of dorm regulations and
a request for an open meeting with the
Board) created a sense of frustration in
many students. It appeared that important
decisions and real action would have to wait
until February.

Obscure Student Role

The role students were to have in making
recommendations for coeducation proved to
be obscure and, for the most part,
non-influential. The only student
participation in the Woody report came
from a study made by the Honor
Committee, and while thousands of alumni
were polled, no effort was made to ascertain
student opinion. A student petition in
support of coeducation with over 3000
signatures was "received" by the Board of
Visitors at its December meeting, but no
action or opinion was expressed. Students
were never given a chance to voice their
opinions directly to the Board of Visitors.
An indirect opportunity came in the form
of a letter from President Shannon to the
Student Council on January 4. The letter
explained that he had authorized the
University Committee on the Future of the
University to make the feasibility study
requested by the Board of Visitors. He
asked Council to bring assistance and make
recommendations to this committee and its
chairman, Frank L. Hereford, Provost of the
University.

Council Makes Recommendations

Council responded by forming a
Committee on the Implementation of
Coeducation with Bud Ogle as chairman.
This committee met with the Coeducation
Committee of The Virginia Council on
Human Relations and drew up a letter with
seven major recommendations. The letter
was presented and approved at the January
14 meeting of Council and a copy was then
sent to President Shannon.

The letter cited many specific problems
and made recommendations to deal with
them. Its important and immediate proposal
was to "recommend that coeducation begin
on a scaled basis in the fall of 1969" with an
essential "target goal of 150 women."

But the Council coeducation committee
never met with and was never contacted by
the Hereford committee. Mr. Ogle stated
that the only other administrative contact
made with his committee occurred when
Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, Robert
Canevari asked Mr. Ogle if he thought the
Council's letter was representative of
student opinion.

Perhaps the only direct representative
students have on the matter of coeducation
is Joseph Kent, a member of the Committee
on the Future of the University. Mr. Kent is
a graduate student in mathematics and was
also an undergraduate student here. He
pointed out that part of the problem in
obtaining student opinion for the
committee report was due to the short
amount of time available to prepare the
report. The Hereford committee did not
start on its report until after the Christmas
break and met as a whole only twice. A
subcommittee to prepare the actual report
(of which Mr. Kent was a member) also met
only twice but did call on the Dean of
Admissions and the Dean of Women in
order to gather information for the
feasibility report.

Admissions "Hang-Up"

Mr. Kent indicated that, as the
committee was gathering information for
the report, he realized that the major
"hang-up" in admitting coeds next fall was
in the Admissions office. Busy with the
applications which made the February 1
deadline, the office would be greatly
overworked if it had to extend the deadline
for admitting women for next fall.

Ernest H. Ern, Dean of Admissions,
confessed that the situation in his office
now is "chaotic at best." Since the release
of the Woody report his office has been
deluged with over 1,450 inquiries from
women interested in enrolling at the
University. He has stated that the admission
of women on a substantial basis would
"create major problems." A recent news
release quoted him as saying, "Since any
change would have an immediate bearing on
long-range planning, we do not anticipate
any major changes in our admissions policy
for at least another academic year." He later
stated that admittance of women from the
local Charlottesville area could only be
considered for upper level courses next
year.

Hereford Outlines Problems

Aside from difficulties in the admissions
office, the reasons behind this restrictive
admittance were outlined by Mr. Hereford
in an interview last week. His report
concerning the feasibility of coeducation
explains more fully why admission of
women in the fall of 1969 will have to be on
a restricted basis. One of the immediate
problems, he said, of admitting a substantial
number of women next fall would be the
lack of faculty and courses in certain
departments. In lower level courses
especially, he continued, there simply would
not be enough staff to handle a large
number of coeds.

Mr. Hereford also cited many problems
which were contained in the Student
Council letter to President Shannon.
Admission of women will radically alter
projections made by the Master Plan
Committee. How many more dormitories
will be build? Should there be coed dorms?
How much change will have to be made in
buildings already projected in the Master
Plan? How will coeducation affect
enrollment at all-women colleges in the
state?

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the
interview with Mr. Hereford was the fact
that his report is merely a preliminary one
and that any future action taken by his
committee will depend on the decision
made by the Board of Visitors this weekend.

The purpose of the report is to make
recommendations as to what possible action
the Board of Visitors might take. Basically,
this boils down to a matter of how much
the Board is willing to commit itself. One
alternative is to drop the requirement
restricting women from the College as
recommended by the Woody Report,
placing the responsibility of implementing
coeducation with the President or a
committee he chooses to appoint. This is
similar to the Board's action on the question
of Student Council of the Student Activities
Fund allocations. At its last meeting, the
Board shifted the responsibility for changes
in procedure to President Shannon. If a
similar course is followed on the matter of
coeducation, then plans could be
implemented and decisions made without
having to wait for a meeting of the Board to
get final approval. However, the Board
might decide to proceed with coeducation
on a step by step basis, retaining its power
to review all decisions and actions taken on
the issue.

Probable Board Action

These are two probable courses the
Hereford committee might recommend to
the Board. Any other possibilities and the
action taken by the Board will have to wait
until after this weekend when the report
and the Board's minutes will be made
public. Just what, if any, long range decision
the Board will make is uncertain but as far
as next fall is concerned it is unlikely that
they will go any further than recommending
that women be admitted on a restricted
basis to upper level courses.

Mr. Hereford stated that any further
action taken by his committee would
depend on the decision of the Board of
Visitors this weekend. He added that if the
Board wished for him to continue the
feasibility study it would certainly be
completed by the fall and hopefully by
June. He was also in favor of having more
students participate at all levels of his
committee's study.

Repetition Of History

In addition, the committee plans to
examine coeducation studies of other
universities, notably the Princeton report
which Mr. Hereford termed one of the most
comprehensive examinations of its type.

At this point, the coeducation question
seems to be a repetition of history, a fact
pointed out last week by the Dean of
Women, Mary E. Whitney. Backin 1893-94
the Board of Visitors "received" a faculty
report which recommended coeducation
and again set up a group to study the
feasibility of such a proposal. The feasibility
study was also received but nothing was ever
done about it.

The dean of women, who is
understandably anxious to see coeducation
at the University, admits she has become
"very frustrated with efforts to bring it
about" and is "deeply discouraged about
the whole business." When she tries to
answer inquiries asking why women cannot
be admitted to the college she says "I can't
think of any logical reasons."

A major step in obtaining coeducation,
according to Miss Whitney is persuading the
University to "commit itself. If we allow
women in we must realize that they have a
right to be here. They are not on good
behavior....Will the University be willing to
say 'welcome'?" She continued that
members of the Board Of Visitors must
"look very closely at what they are
committing themselves to." They may or
may not set down certain general guidelines
for coeducation at the next meeting "but if
they don't then this will have to come up
year after year."

Cites Princeton Report

Miss Whitney pointed out that the
Princeton report showed very clearly that
high school men and women no longer want
to separate themselves when going to college
and added that she believed a great number
of women want to transfer as well as apply
to the College of Arts and Sciences. But "I
won't believe times and attitudes have
changed here until something is actually
done."

As for her role in a coeducationalized
University Dean Whitney described the idea
of a "Dean of Women" as "increasingly
archaic." She said that the need depended
to a large degree on the type of school; most
of the large coeducational institutions in the
West have no dean of women while the
small private colleges in the east generally
do. Many times a dean of Women, or any
dean, she added, serve no useful role for the
students because the students feel that the
deans have been "sucked up by the
Establishment." As an alternative, she said,
some schools have an "Ombudsman", a
Swedish word which has come to mean
someone to whom the students may take
their troubles. "If someone feels he has been
given a raw deal then the Ombudsman will
investigate the situation."

Accept Responsibility

Having no Ombudsman, the students of
the University will have to look to the
Board of Visitors for a decision as far as
coeducation is concerned. The decisions
made this Saturday will probably determine
just how easily and speedily coeds can
become part of University life. The
decisions are important and demand heavy
consideration. Perhaps the most considered
factor was pointed out by Dean Whitney:
"Once someone assumes the responsibility
for a decision then they must be willing to
accept the risks that go with it."