University of Virginia Library

It was my initial feeling that no
good purpose would be served by
making further remarks about the
question of admitting co-eds to the
College. Certainly, it is impossible
to have an intelligent discussion
about a question with those who
will not admit or who are so blind
they can not see that the question
has two sides.

However, because of some remarks,
both written and verbal,
from students who support my
stand against admitting co-eds to
the College, and who wish to see a
reply to some of the recent statements
in letters to the Editor, I
think some clarification may be
indicated. I would particularly like
to remark about the letter written
by Mr. Cormier in the November 6
issue of The Cavalier Daily.

Mr. Cormier apparently needs to
brush up on his English. He needs
to re-read and understand what my
initial correspondence (October 31,
1968) to The Cavalier Daily indicated.
He has tried to put words in
my mouth which is a common
tactic of those who have no real
ground to stand on or who try to
overwhelm the issue with confusion.

Contrary to Mr. Cormier's statement,
my initial letter to the Editor
of The Cavalier Daily was not a
"reaction" to Mr. Cormier's letter. I
was merely sending The Cavalier
Daily a copy of a letter I had
previously sent Dean Woody in
response to his Committee request
for feelings on the issue of whether
girls should be admitted to the
College. My letter was written
several months prior to the publishing
of Mr. Cormier's letter, so in no
way could have been written as a
"reaction" to Mr. Cormier's letter.

I have stated that this question
has two sides. The feelings both pro
and con are purely personal. I know
of no studies based on any fact that
would indicate a better education
can be obtained either with or
without co-education. Mr. Cormier
makes much of the fact I did not
state the disadvantages of co-education.
He overlooks the fact I also
did not state the advantages of
co-education; although I stated
there were some. I have not seen
Mr. Cormier's list of advantages of
co-education. I have not seen any
other published list of advantages
of co-education in recent letters to
the Editor of The Cavalier Daily. I
have seen suggestions in letters to
The Cavalier Daily that for some it
would make life happier, and it's
their personal desire.

"Status quo" was not mentioned
in my letter. I do not necessarily
favor "status quo" on anything.
However, I feel we have now
an excellent educational program in
the College, and I would not like to
see the program materially changed
unless good factual, reasons were
presented to show that an improvement
would result. Change for
changes sake is not necessarily
progress.

Mr. Cormier's interpretation of
"compound" and "erection" as
derogatory terms are entirely his
own feelings. Possibly in French
they are derogatory, but in English
they are very proper and fitting
words. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary (1964 unabridged)
lists the following definitions:

a. COMPOUND: "composed of
or produced by the union of several
elements, ingredients, parts or
things." (In the case of the establishment
of a good college, the
ingredients are many and varied.)

b. ERECT: "to bring into existence
as if by raising or building."
(In my usage of this word, it fits
exactly.)

Mr. Cormier suggests that faculty
salaries are a good index of the
education process. This can be very
misleading. Recently many state
professional salaries were increased.
Did this produce the next morning,
or will it produce next year, a
better quality of education? Haircuts
in Washington, D.C. are $3.50
and $4.00, haircuts in Charlottesville
are $1.75 and $2.00. Does this
make a D.C. haircut twice as good,
or a D.C. barber twice as good?

I feel we have now and have had
in the past a fine University. The
College of Arts and Sciences as a
part of the University has an excellent
educational program. Witness
students in school from all parts of
the state as well as the many who
come from a large number of other
states. The professors who teach
here as well as the students who
come here do so of their own free
will and because of our excellence.
When I read such statements as
written by Richard O'Ryan "can
those of us who are sincerely interested
in making the University of
Virginia an institution of learning"
(by admitting co-eds), I wonder
why he chose to come to this
school. Presumably he felt it was
the best "institution of learning"
available to him.

Lastly, I feel that within reason
the desires of the people should be
fulfilled. I respect the wishes of
those who desire co-education and
this state offers excellent co-educational
programs at other institutions.
I strongly feel that those who
desire to have a non co-educational
education should have their wishes
respected also. This state presently
provides for this and I hope will
continue to do so. For any who
enter either of these types of
schools but find things not to his
liking, the state provides a remedy
for this also - transfer.