The University of North Carolina 
 Chapel HiU 
 
 The Admission of Women 
 
 to the 
 
 University 
 
 By 
 
 President H» W. Chase 
 
 March, 1923 
 
I 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/admissionofwomenOOchas 
 
The Admission of Women to the 
 University of North Carolina 
 
 The question of co-education at the University has 
 aroused so much discussion that it seems to me the 
 position of the University administration should be 
 made clear. The position is, in a word, that the 
 policy under which the University is now operating, 
 and which has been decided upon after careful 
 thought, is altogether in keeping with the logic of 
 the situation, and with the mature thought of tJie 
 great majority of both men and women in the State. 
 There appears no evidence that it should be changed. 
 What does appear, however, is a considerable mis- 
 understanding of just what that policy is, and a 
 begging of the question brought about by the division 
 of opinion as to whether a building for women should 
 be erected at this time. 
 
 The question as to the. immediate erection of a 
 woman's building is one to be determined in terms 
 of what is practicable now. The University's atti- 
 tude toward women students, on the other hand, can 
 be considered only, as it has been considered, in the 
 large and permanent terms of State policy. Let us 
 see, then, on what the University's policy is founded. 
 
 k Equality for Both Sexes 
 
 In the first place, no great democracy is possible 
 today without full and free recognition on the part 
 of its citizens of the fact that there must be for 
 both sexes equality of educational opportunity. The 
 State of North Carolina, in her rapid progress needs 
 trained women, women of wide horizons a^nd clear 
 vision, every whit as badly as she needs trained men. 
 In so far as higher education opens a way to life, 
 to larger life, that way must be open to young women 
 and young men alike. In so far as higher education 
 is a means, as the framers of our Constitution said 
 
 3 
 
 p 3c>oSfe 
 
it was, to promote ' ^ the happiness of the rising gener- 
 ations/^ the rising generation without distinction of 
 sex is entitled to its benefits. 
 
 Second. The University of North Carolina is the 
 State University, the head of the State's educational 
 system, maintained from the public funds, to serve 
 the State whose creation and instrument it is. It is, 
 as it is described in the Constitution, for the bene- 
 fit of the youth'' of the State. No constitutional 
 provisions, no legislative enactments, bar women from 
 its halls. It is, therefore, its duty and privilege to 
 function in the education of women in whatever ways 
 are designed to insure to the women of the State 
 equality of educational opportunity through the 
 State's educational system. It cannot conceivably 
 take any other position; it cannot for a moment be 
 satisfied with any policy which would mean that it 
 refused to play its part in making possible a well- 
 rounded system of higher education through State 
 support for women as well as for men. It cannot 
 deny its function as the University of a democratic 
 State, whose citizens of both sexes share equally the 
 duties and the rights of citizenship. 
 
 Keeping the two principles stated above in mind, 
 it is clear that the part which the University should 
 play becomes a matter of definition, a question of 
 fact as to what is essential to make equality of edu- 
 cational opportunity a reality. It is a questioTi to be 
 determined, that is, in the light of the facts as to 
 what the State is doing and should do for the educa- 
 tion of women, and which can be wisely settled on 
 no other basis. What are the significant facts? To 
 my mind they are these. 
 
 Development in State is Different 
 
 State universities in most sections of the country 
 have not separated their facilities for the higher 
 education of women from those for men. Such State 
 universities as those of lov/a', Michigan, California — 
 
 4 
 
in fact, those of the middle western states generally — 
 offer university education to women from the fresh- 
 man class up through the graduate school on the same 
 campus and under the same instructors as for men, 
 and have done so from their foundation. In North 
 Oarolina the development has been somewhat different. 
 With the full assent and active support of the citizen- 
 ship of the State, the institution for women at Greens- 
 boro, originated as the Normal College, is broadening 
 into the North Carolina College for Women. I trust 
 that no one will think me presumptions for saying 
 anything in this connection about another institution 
 than the one I have the privilege to serve; it is essen- 
 tial if the situation is to be clarified. The North 
 Carolina College for Women, then, with the thoughtful 
 citizenship of both sexes in the State behind it, began 
 some years ago its development into a State-supported 
 institution of collegiate grade and scope, and has been 
 recognized as a standard college by the Southern As- 
 sociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools. This 
 matter of policy in the higher education of women is, 
 I believe, settled in the minds of the State, and to it, 
 as the State has defined it, the University should, and 
 does, cordially assent. 
 
 Now this means certain things. It means, first, 
 that the University cannot, and should not, attempt 
 to do what Iowa, and Michigan, and California, and 
 their neighbors have done; adopt a policy which en- 
 rolls hundreds and thousands of women in elementary 
 classes on the same campus with men. In none of the 
 States which have done this does there exist a sep- 
 arate state institution for women playing a part in 
 the state's educational system comparable to that 
 played by the North Carolina College for Women. 
 The point should be emphasized, because I do not 
 think that it is fully understood. State-supported 
 normal schools for women exist all over the country; 
 separated state colleges for women are rare. The 
 
 5 
 
most fully developed example outside of North Caro- 
 lina is probably the State College for Women of 
 Florida, which is located at Tallahassee, while the 
 State University (to which I believe women are not 
 admitted at all) is at Gainesville. 
 
 In the light, then, of our local situation, I am con- 
 vinced that a policy of absolutely free and unre- 
 stricted co-education at the University of North Caro- 
 lina would not be wise. It would involve on a large 
 scale a duplication of resources and of expenditure 
 for large elementary classes; such an unnecessary 
 duplication as should have no place in a well-con- 
 ceived State system of higher education. 
 
 Graduate Work at Chapel Hill 
 
 Let us consider next the other extreme, that of 
 graduate and professional instruction. Such instruc- 
 tion has been built up through years of effort at 
 Chapel Hill. It is expensive, it is w^ork of Univer- 
 sity, as distinguished from collegiate, type. The 
 State demands such work of its University. It is 
 one of the functions for the performance of which 
 it exists. I do not believe that I am saying any- 
 thing to which the friends of North Carolina Col- 
 lege for Women would not assent in stating frankly 
 my opinion that, save for the fields into which women 
 largely enter, the logical place for graduate and pro- 
 fessional work for both women and men is at the 
 University of North Carolina. This is at once the 
 simplest and most economical solution; the simplest 
 in that strong schools already functioning exist at 
 Chapel Hill; the most economical in that the dupli- 
 cation of specialists, books and apparatus would be a 
 terribly costly business. Is it not clear, then, that 
 the graduate and professional schools of the Univer- 
 sity should, as a wise measure of State policy, always 
 be open to women as well as to men? I, personally, 
 am absolutely convinced that it is. 
 
 6 
 
As to Advanced Undergraduate Work 
 
 So far, then, a logical policy would seem to point 
 to the exclusion of women from elementary work at 
 the University, and their admission to graduate and 
 professional work. But there is still another point. 
 What of their admission to advanced undergraduate 
 courses! The answer to this question is, I think, 
 clear. It is inevitable that, as soon as we get beyond 
 the elementary courses of freshman and sophomore 
 grades, which are fairly well standardized in all 
 good colleges, institutions will vary in the range and 
 scope of the advanced courses which they develop in 
 this or tliat department, and that students of vary- 
 ing types of mind and interest will find at different 
 institutions that work which most nearly meets their 
 needs. Local situations, matters of institutional 
 policy, naturally lead to greater developments in ad- 
 vanced work at a given institution in some fields 
 rather than others. It would seem logical, therefore, 
 that women who find at the University as juniors and 
 seniors advanced courses which the University has 
 developed, and which are in line with their serious 
 interests, should be allowed to pursue them. Any 
 other policy would, I believe, be a contradiction in 
 fact of the theory of equality of educational oppor- 
 tunity upon which our State system of higher educa- 
 tion must be based, inasmuch as the needs of young 
 women of widely varying types of interest must be 
 considered if real equality of opportunity is to exist. 
 There is in such a position no conflict of scope be- 
 tween the institutions at Greensboro and at Chapel 
 Hill; rather in this respect they are to be considered 
 as supplementing each other. 
 
 Policy Is Not New 
 
 I The policy I have outlined is, I believe, fully in 
 ■accord with the logic of the situation. It is not 
 
 I 7 
 
original with me, but is the policy under which the 
 University has been operating for years. Women 
 have been, and are, welcome here under that policy. 
 It has not, I think, been fully understood, and I have 
 attempted to clarify it. I see no reason why it should 
 be changed, save as it changes in detail of itself 
 naturally through the years, in terms of the offerings 
 of North Carolina' College for Women and of the 
 University in this or that department. I believe it 
 is a policy upon which the friends of both institu- 
 tions can unite, as wise alike for the institutions and 
 for the best interests of the education of women in 
 the State. 
 
 The question of a building for women at this time 
 is another question. It is not, and should not be 
 considered as, a determining factor in the Univer- 
 sity's attitude toward women. Whether it can or 
 cannot be built at this mombnt is a matter which 
 must be carefully studied in the light of all the facts, 
 and of the best interests of the University and of the 
 State. But whether or not it is built at this moment, 
 the provisions of adequate material facilities for 
 women at the University in accord with its fixed 
 policy is an obligation which the University cannot, 
 and has no desire to, escape. On the contrary, the 
 University has no deeper satisfaction than that ol 
 proper provision for the needs of the growing com- 
 monwealth which it serves. 
 
 But this is apart from my main point. What I 
 have tried to say, as clearly as I know how, is that 
 the University believes in equality of educational op- 
 portunity for both sexes, and in its duty to see to 
 it that it does its part to help make that principle 
 a reality. ^ 
 
 i 
 
 8