University of Virginia Library

XX. The Students—Admission of Women

In contemplating the student body as a whole, it will
be necessary to inquire into the history of the movement,
during the Seventh Period, 1865–1895, which had in view
the admission of women to all the advantages of instruction
in the University of Virginia. Apparently, the
earliest recorded incident in this movement was the petition
of Miss Caroline Preston Davis, submitted to the
Faculty in June, 1892, in which she asked permission to
stand the examinations that would be required, during the
ensuing session, of all candidates for the degree of bachelor
of arts, in the School of Mathematics. The Faculty
adopted a resolution in general approval of this novel application,
—with the proviso, however, that the test could
only be taken subject to such conditions as the professor
in that school should consider proper to impose.

The Faculty did not stop with an affirmative response
to this single petition. They referred the broad question
whether women should or should not be permitted to
stand all the University examinations, to a special committee,
which was directed to draft an immediate report.
The general attitude of the Faculty at this time was expressed

by Professor Thornton, the chairman: "It
seemed, on the one hand, unwise," he said, "to overburden
the already overcrowded programme of the academic
department with special lectures to women, and on
the other, inadvisable to adopt the radical policy of coeducation.
It appeared, however, practical and useful
that the University should direct the studies of young
women who were desirous of undertaking University
work, examine them in the courses there pursued, and
award to the meritorious suitable honorary certificates,
adopting thus for the present towards the sex, the rôle of
an examining university rather than a teaching university."

In harmony with this thoughtfully weighed conclusion,
the Faculty drafted the following series of regulations:
First, every woman above eighteen years of age
who could offer an acceptable certificate of good character
and adequate preparation, was to be permitted to register
her name with the chairman as a student in the academic
school which she should select; but she must have
previously obtained the consent of the professor in that
school, and paid a fee of twenty-five dollars. She was
not, however, to have the right to attend his regular
lectures in his classroom. The instruction, it seems,
was to be received in a less public way, and principally
from a licentiate. Secondly, she was to be required to
pass successfully upon the examination papers submitted
to the young men of the school; but this test of knowledge
was not to be made in the presence of the male members
of the class, but privately, under such rules touching
supervision and chaperonage as the Faculty should lay
down. The same studies might be prosecuted by women
residing at a distance. These were to be permitted to
come up to the University at stated times for professional

advice and guidance; but for actual instruction, in preparation
for their examinations, all female candidates so
situated would have to depend chiefly on other schools or
on private tutors. The only award which would be
granted to a woman would be a certificate of proficiency.

Such was the original position taken by the Faculty
and Board in connection with female education through
the agency of the University of Virginia.

In May, 1893, the Faculty met to draw up their annual
report to the Visitors. Thirteen of the professors
were present, and six were absent. Before any opinion
on the question of admitting women was expressed, two
were compelled to withdraw by the unavoidable call of
other business. The general conclusion was, therefore,
left to be reached by eleven members of the body, of whom
at least three or four dissented from the opinion of the
majority, which consisted of only seven or eight voices in
all. It was acknowledged that the opinion of the latter
did not reflect the opinion of the entire Faculty. What
was the substance of the conclusion arrived at by this
majority? That the aid which had been offered to young
women under the original resolution of that body and the
Board had turned out to be "ineffective." There is no
record of the facts which had led the greater number of
the professors present on this occasion to come to this
conviction. The only young lady who had proposed offering
for examination was Miss Davis, and her papers
were to be found a few months later to be so excellent that
the certificate of proficiency was conferred on her. A
minority report recommended that the final decision as
to the manner of admitting women should be deferred for
one year at least, by the end of which time it was expected
that reliable information could be procured to show the
comparative advantages and drawbacks of the annex systern

and the coordinate system of education alike. The
minority report, in the end, seems to have counseled the
establishment of the annex system, while the majority
report again recommended that the academical schools
should be opened only to such registered women as each
professor should consent to receive, and subject to such
regulations as he should impose, with the approval of the
Board.

On July, 20 (1893), the Visitors assembled. They
had before them for consideration: (1) a majority report
of the Faculty; (2) a minority report, signed by eight
professors, who appear to have been Venable, Holmes,
Dunnington, Barringer, Minor, Smith, Schele, and Gilmore;
and (3) a petition, advocating the admission of
women to the University courses of instruction, submitted
by the Society for the Extension of Higher Education in
Virginia. They concluded their deliberations by requesting
the Faculty to formulate the rules for the admission
of women to the academic schools. The Faculty in
September, 1893, appointed a committee to draft these
rules; but this committee does not seem to have reported
until May, 1894. Its recommendations on that occasion
were as follows. (1) That women eighteen years of
age or beyond, should, on presenting acceptable credentials
of good character, and offering proof of adequate
preparation, be permitted to matriculate and enter such
academical schools as they should select, after having paid
the usual fees; (2) that every professor admitting
women to his classes should be instructed to submit for
the approval of the Faculty and Board the specific requirements
which he intended to enforce; (3) that all the
female students should be at liberty to reside with their
parents, guardians, or kinsmen, or in homes approved
by the Faculty; and, finally, (4) that three dormitories

should be reserved for their exclusive use during the intervals
between their lectures.

This report seems to have been signed by Tuttle,
Peters, Smith, Mallet, and Kent. When it was laid before
the Faculty, Professor Fontaine submitted a resolution
that women should not be granted the right of admission
to the University courses; and that all the existing
provisions for their registration and examination
should be cancelled after September 15, 1895. This
resolution prevailed. The members of the Faculty who
supported the substitute were Holmes, Venable, Davis,
Fontaine, Garnett, Gilmore, Humphreys, Barringer,
Kent, Lile, Perkinson, Dabney, Echols, and Christian.
Those who voted against it were Smith, Peters, Stone,
Thornton, Dunnington, Mallet, and Tuttle. The proportion
was fourteen to seven. Minor, Schele, and W. C.
Dabney were absent when the ballot was taken.

The reasons given by the majority for their hostility
to the admission of women on an equal footing with
men were in substance as follows. Women could not
correctly claim that they had a legal right to enter the
University because they were tax-payers; negroes also
were tax-payers; and yet their exclusion was never a
subject of dispute. The right of entry possessed by
women was only a right in equity; but this right in equity
would not be satisfied by admitting them, since the education
obtainable at the University of Virginia was not
one that was suitable for the members of their sex. On
the contrary, it would only serve to draw them away
from those excellencies which made that sex such a power
in the home. Under the arcades they would be certain
to grow boisterous, familiar, and bold in manners,
and perhaps even rudely aggressive, under the influence
of an ambitious rivalry with the male collegians. But

from the broad point of view of race preservation, there
were consequences even more appalling than those which
have been mentioned. "According to medical authority,"
the report of the majority gravely asserted "the
strain on young women in severe competitive work (in the
higher schools of learning) does often physically unsex
them, and they afterwards fail in the demands of motherhood."
And yet the signers of the same report were of
the opinion that there were possibilities of license in this
close association of young men and young women which
not even the most vigilant and constant oversight could
entirely remove or suppress. "Let us not be bullied,"
they exclaim, "into a false position by the clamour of
a noisy majority of the public, thereby breaking irrevocably
with and condemning the University's past. It
would lower our standards to those of co-educational
schools elsewhere. It would require a supervision inconsistent
with the Honor System and the system of discipline."

The final vote of the members of the Faculty on the
question of admitting women to the institution on the
co-educational basis stood in the proportion of four in
favor of the measure to twelve in opposition to it. The
four were Peters, Thornton, Mallet, and Tuttle. The
result of this vote seems to have been reconsidered on
June 4 (1894), but, apparently, without material modification.
A paper drafted by Professor Davis was incorporated
in the report as ultimately adopted.

The Board, a few days later (June 11), demonstrated
by their action that they were in sympathy with the
views of the large majority of the Faculty. They declared
themselves to be earnest advocates of the higher
education of women, and expressed their regret that
there should be no adequate facilities in Virginia for its

acquisition; but in spite of these feelings, they said, they
found it impossible to believe that co-education was in
harmony with the character and situation of the institution;
and they were also convinced, they added, that
such an innovation had not been contemplated by its
founder. Not satisfied with simply refusing to admit
women to the different classes, the Board rescinded all
the regulations then in existence, which threw open indirectly
to members of that sex some of the benefits of its
instruction. Camm Patterson was the only Visitor who
advocated the establishment of an annex at some distance
beyond the precincts, where the female students
might receive lessons from the professors attached to
the academic department of the University. This was
perhaps the first official suggestion of coordinate education,
which, at a later day, was to become the heated
centre of opposing opinions.