Introduction

Women at the University: Our Changing Face

Despite the growing radicalism of the University and the nation, the University's admissions policy continued to prohibit women from attending undergraduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences in equal measure with men until 1970. Throughout the 1960s, the school still practiced the Board of Visitor's 1920 decision to admit "mature women" at least of the age of 20 to its graduate and professional schools. Therefore, the majority of the women present prior to the fall of 1970 pursued programs in the Nursing School, the Education School and the graduate programs (on a small scale) in Law, Medicine, Arts and Sciences, Engineering and Architecture. Qualified women wanting to pursue a program in the Humanities could attend Mary Washington College, the University's coordinate school. There were precious few exceptions made to this prescribed admissions division.

Female University students prior to 1970 appear to have been marginalized by male students. Nursing school students lived in McKim Hall near the hospital and other female students lived in Mary Mumford on Emmett Street. Contact with male students was fairly limited, as the men "rolled" to surrounding women's colleges to date.

While these women appear to not disturb the status quo, they are affected by the quakes of the Women's Movement around them. The Women's Students Association hosts many programs related to women's health issues and women as "the inferior sex." While no research leads one to believe that this type of "consciousness raising" stirred any broad ranging revolts, they do seem to defend themselves ferociously when administrators threaten to take away their privileges to the "Co-Ed room." They demand the preservation of a space on Central Grounds just for women. These women, however, have little if not nothing to do with the coming of coeducation at the University.

As quality institutions across the nation began to admit women as early at the late 1950s and most had at least made plans to coeducate by the mid-1960s, the University of Virginia began feeling the pressure to keep the pace with their peer institutions. Many educators and officials at the University also began suspecting that admissions discrimination based on gender could not stand up in the court of law. In addition, a growing number of professors felt that the forces of Enlightenment compelled them to educate men and women as best as they could, and the best education could be found at this premier state institution in a mixed gender environment.

In the Spring of 1967, President Edgar Shannon formed a committee to evaluate the necessity of admitting women to the College of Arts and Sciences. Faculty members and administrators from both the University and Mary Washington College poured over the issues at hand for 16 months. Because they wanted to include as many opinions from various groups as possible, they polled alumni, students and professors. None of their polling techniques proved valid, and the response rates undermine any generalizations. Out of 40,000 surveys sent to alumni, fewer than 100 were returned, only two-thirds of those opposing coeducation. The Woody Commission, named for its chairman, T. Braxton Woody, only polled student leaders of a select few organizations. No conclusions could be drawn from the mixed and limited student responses. However, members of the Honor Committee complained that women would undermine the honor system. The Committee's report is included in the Woody Commission's recommendation, and is therefore, often interpreted as a form of large-scale student opposition. Cavalier Daily editorials actually show that students fell on either side of the argument, citing a broad range of reasons for their opinions. Faculty response seems easier to interpret as a large majority favored the entrance of women. They name reasons of Enlightenment, legality and the promise of female excellence.

The Woody Commission recommends to the Board of Visitors in the fall of 1968 to admit women to the College of Arts and Sciences. Only one of the 16 Commission members opposed the recommendation. The Board approved the recommendation at their fall meeting and ordered a "feasibility" report, detailing how the school would accommodate this new population.

In designing the implementation plan, Frank Hereford looked to peer institutions that already coeducated or that were making plans to do so. Despite the fact that prominent universities accepted women in the late 1960s, admissions was on a limited basis. Most of the schools capped off the female population to below 30 percent. Hereford tried to emulate that model at the University. He proposed gradually increasing the number of women per year, allowing them to account for 35 percent of the student population by 1980.

While Hereford is detailing his implementation plan, Virginia courts receive their first official complaints about the University's discriminatory admissions policy from four women. Under the representation of the American Civil Liberties Union, these women, the most famous of whom is Virginia Scott, appeal for a change in the University's admissions policies. While this court case did not force the University to coeducate (the Woody Commission already recommended to admit women), it did alter the way the University admitted women. First of all, the court disapproved of Hereford's implementation plan and mandated that within three years, the school must admit students without regard to sex. Also, because the court stood behind the University's decision to coeducate, it put more pressure on the state to provide for expenses incurred with the entering women. The four women were also given a temporary injunction to study in the College in the fall of 1969 instead of waiting for the formal arrival of women in the fall of 1970. Only Scott takes advantage of this injunction.

Because of the lateness of their arrival and the laborious discussions leading up to women's admittance, one would suspect their actual entrance to have spurned much contention. This is not the case. While we cannot dismiss that some women did feel patronized by male professors and disrespected by male students, by and large, these women had rewarding experiences. Much of the ease of transition relates to the make-up of the first class of women in the College. Ernest Ern, Admissions Dean during this transition, admits that the Admissions Office intentionally selected exceedingly strong candidates who exuded academic, leadership and social promise. These women were destined to succeed. They arrived without expectations of barriers, and they pursued their interests without limits. In this first class of women, there are Lawn residents, Managing Board Members of the Cavalier Daily, IMPs and Honor Committee Members. Theirs is a legacy to be remembered.

Many professors proclaim that women raised the academic standards at the University. As they welcomed women to their classes, professors said good-bye to the "Gentlemen's C." Male students felt the pressure to perform well when they compared themselves to diligent, capable and bright female peers. Many critics claim that our current national status has much to do with the new standards women brought to the University with their arrival.

The UVA of 1968 and 1972 couldn't be more different. Students traded their "coat and ties" for blue jeans and T-shirts. Women brought their mini skirts and halter tops. The few African American students in 1968 became small, but noticeable groups in 1972. The 1960s pulled at the fabric of the University, and then when they seem finally broke, the school found itself embracing a more diverse student population and a set of radical ideas about the potential of its newest generation.

Amanda Locke