Item Information
Title
Editorial, WOMEN STUDENTS NOT WANTED HERE, The Tar Heel, 1923
Description
Editorial published in the campus newspaper, The Tar Heel, March 14, 1923, titled WOMEN STUDENTS NOT WANTED HERE. Voiced by Zach Eanes
Creator
PlayMaker’s Repertory Company in collaboration with the University Archives at Louis Round Wilson Library
Date
2021
Language
English
Identifier
https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/items/show/7503
Transcription
Male voice:
Editorial, in the campus newspaper, The Tar Heel, March 14, 1923
WOMEN STUDENTS NOT WANTED HERE
A question that vitally affects the future of the University of North Carolina is hanging in the balance, and will be decided more or less definitely for all time the early part of next week. That is the question of co-education: Are the Trustees going to sanction general co-education at the University, and will the Building Committee use the money appropriated the University to construct a co-ed dormitory?
The Tar Heel takes a definite stand against co-education at the University on any such scope as would necessitate the construction of a woman’s dormitory here, and believes that the co-educational enrollment should be limited to residents of Chapel Hill, and to graduate and professional students. In its fight to have any such proposition as the construction of a woman’s dormitory and encouragement of co-education killed for all time it has sought the opinion and sentiment of the leading students of the University. . . .We are unable to see how this body could vote to have co-education here with such a mass of student sentiment against it.
If there are girls in the state who insist that they get their education along with the masculine sex there are other co-educational institutions in the state which they are privileged to attend, but the men students at this University have no desire for them here, and never will have any desire to have them here unless such a dreadful mistake is made as the construction of this woman’s dormitory, and the University becomes overrun with girl students, and an effeminate influence of sentimentality becomes paramount.
. . . We can think of nothing more distasteful than such a thing. To have classes composed of as many women as men students would prove a serious handicap in the teaching in some of the departments. The women here would only prove a distracting influence, could do no possible good, and would turn the grand old institution into a semi-effeminate college which would certainly have no attraction for us. The University could make no greater mistake than this step of co-education, and we have confidence that any such movement will be checked now, next week, and we pray to the heavens that it will be stopped for all time.
Editorial, in the campus newspaper, The Tar Heel, March 14, 1923
WOMEN STUDENTS NOT WANTED HERE
A question that vitally affects the future of the University of North Carolina is hanging in the balance, and will be decided more or less definitely for all time the early part of next week. That is the question of co-education: Are the Trustees going to sanction general co-education at the University, and will the Building Committee use the money appropriated the University to construct a co-ed dormitory?
The Tar Heel takes a definite stand against co-education at the University on any such scope as would necessitate the construction of a woman’s dormitory here, and believes that the co-educational enrollment should be limited to residents of Chapel Hill, and to graduate and professional students. In its fight to have any such proposition as the construction of a woman’s dormitory and encouragement of co-education killed for all time it has sought the opinion and sentiment of the leading students of the University. . . .We are unable to see how this body could vote to have co-education here with such a mass of student sentiment against it.
If there are girls in the state who insist that they get their education along with the masculine sex there are other co-educational institutions in the state which they are privileged to attend, but the men students at this University have no desire for them here, and never will have any desire to have them here unless such a dreadful mistake is made as the construction of this woman’s dormitory, and the University becomes overrun with girl students, and an effeminate influence of sentimentality becomes paramount.
. . . We can think of nothing more distasteful than such a thing. To have classes composed of as many women as men students would prove a serious handicap in the teaching in some of the departments. The women here would only prove a distracting influence, could do no possible good, and would turn the grand old institution into a semi-effeminate college which would certainly have no attraction for us. The University could make no greater mistake than this step of co-education, and we have confidence that any such movement will be checked now, next week, and we pray to the heavens that it will be stopped for all time.