The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina Press for the Univer
sity Extension Division.
APRIL 18, 1923
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
VOL. IX, NO. 22
Editorial Boards .'B. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs, Jr., L. B. Wilaon. E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll, J. B. Bullitt, H. W, Odum,
Entered a:, second-class matter November 14,1914, at the Poatoffice at Chapel Hill, N, G, under the act of August 24. 1912
THE UNIVERSITY’S POLICY
ON CO-EDUCATION
We are carrying herewith the full
atatement by President Chase to the
faculty ©f the University explaining the
policy of the University of North Caro
lina on co-education. His statement
follows:
The question of co-education at the
University has aroused so much discus
sion 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 the 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 misunder
standing of just Owhat 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 at
titude 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.
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 opportun
ity. The state of North Carolina in
her rapid progress needs trained
women, women of wide horizons and
clear vision, every whit as badly as she
needu trained men. In so far as higher
education opens a way to life, to larger
life, that way must be open to young
w/omen and young men alike. In so far
as higher education is & means, as the
framers of our Constitution said it was,
to promote “the happiness of the ris
ing generations,’’ 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 in
strument it is. It is, as it is described
in the Constitution, for the benefit of
the “youth” of the state. No consti
tutional provisions, no legislative enact
ments, bar women from its halls. It
is, therefore, its duty and privilege to
functiom in the education of women in
whatever ways are designed to ensare
to the women of the state eqnalitj of
educational oppertunity through the
state’s educational system. It cannot
conceivably take &ny other position; it
cannot for a moment be aatisfled with
any policy which would mean that it
refused to play its part in making pos
eible a well-rounded system of higher
education through state sui^rt for
women as well as for men. It cannot
deny its function as the University of
a democratic state, whose citieens of
both sexes share equally the duties and
the rights of citizenship.
Keeping the two principles stated
bove in mind, it is clear that the part
which the University should play be
comes a matter of definition, a ques
tion of fact as to what is essential to
make equality of educational opportun
ity a reality. It is a question to be deter
mined, that is, in the light of the facts
as to what the state is doing and should
do for the education of women, and
which can be wisely settled on no other
basis. What are the significant facts?
To my mind they are these.
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 Iowa, Michigan,
California—in fact, those of the middle
western states generally—oifer univer
sity 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 Carolina the develi^ment has
been somewhat different. With the
full assent and active support of the
citizenship of the state, the institution
for women at Greensboro, originated
as the Normal College, is broadening
into the North Carolina College for
Women. I trust that no one will think
me presumptuous for saying anything
in this connectiwi about another insti
tution than the one I have the privi
lege to serve; it is essential if the situ
ation is to be clarified. The North Ca
rolina 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 recog
nized as a standard college by the
Southern Association 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 de
fined it, the University should, and
does, cordially assent.
Now this means certain things. It
means, ^he first, that the University
cannot, and should not, attempt to do
what Iowa,- and Michigan, and Cali
fornia, and their neighbors have done;
adopt a policy which enrolls 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 separate state
institution for women playing a part in
the state’s educational system compar
able to that played by the North Caro
lina 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
most fully developed example outside
of North Carolina 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 Gaines-
viile.
In the light, then, of our local situa
tion, I am convinced tjiat a policy of
absolutely free and unrestricted co-edu-
cation at the University of North Ca
rolina would not be wise. It would in
volve on a large scale a duplication of
resources and of expenditure for large
elementary clasBes; such an unneces
sary duplication as should have no place
in a well-conceived state system of
higber education.
Let ns consider next the other ex
treme, that of graduate and profes
sional instruction. Such instruction
has been built up through years of ef
fort at Chapel Hill. It is expensive, it
is work of University, as distinguished
from collegiate, type. The state de
mands such work of its University. It
is one of the functioas for the perform
ance of which it exists, I do not be
lieve that I am saying anything to
which the friends of North Carolina
College for Women would not assent in
stating frankly my opinion that, save for
the fields into which women largely en
ter, the logical place for graduate and
professional work for both women and
men is at the University ofNorth Caro
lina. This is at once the simplest and
most economical solution; the simplest in
that strong schools already functioning
exist at Chapel Hill; the most economi
cal in that the duplication of special
ists, books and apparatus would be a
terribly costly business. Is it not clear,
then, that the graduate and profes
sional schools of the University should,
as a wise measure of state policy, al
ways be open to women as well as to
men? I, personally, am absolutely con
vinced that it is.
So far, then, a logical policy would
seem to point to the exclusion of women
from elementary work at the Univer
sity, and their admission to graduate
and professional work. But there is
still another point. What of their ad
mission to advanced undergraduate
courses? Tne answer to this question
is, I think, clear. It is inevitable that,
as soon as we get beyond the elemen
tary courses of freshmanLand sopho
more grades, which are fairly well
standardized in all good colleges, in
stitutions will vary in ^he| range and
scope of the advanced courses^wbich
they develop in this or that depart
ment, and that students of varying
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
A South Carolina Verdict
Another South Carolina newspa
per, The HaTtsville Messenger, pays
high tribute to the North Carolina
spirit of hustle and foward-looking
progress. Taking the observations
of Editor Ball, of The Columbia State
as a basis, the Hartsville paper goes
on to show the South Carolinians
how it is done in North Carolina:
North Carolina, now regarded
one of the most progressive states in
the Union, is constantly being held
up as an object lesson to South Ca
rolinians and South Carolina legisla
tors as to what can be done through
constructive legislation and efficient
administration of government. In
government, in development of its
educational system, in development
of its state institutions, in construc
tion of good roads. North Carolina
has perhaps gone further in a short
time than any state in the Union
has ever done. The North Carolina
General Assembly is now in session
(they have biennial sessions, by the
way) and the editor of The State is
spending some time in Raleigh to see
“how it’s done.” His observations
on North Carolina, and his compari
sons of the two sister states, as
published daily in the paper of which
he is editor, are furnishing interest
ing reading matter, and incidentally
throwing new light upon the differ
ences of the two states. Among the
things that Editor Ball finds in North
Carolina is the apparant absence of
the picayune localism and - precinct
politics, and the prevalence of a
high regard for the state over the
narrow idea of “county rights.” He
finds there, in the traveling hospital
idea, the co-ordination of education,
health, and roads; a co-ordination
that characterizes the efforts of
every department or institution of
North Carolina with every other
department or institution. There is
absence of jealousy or conflict be
tween institutions, and apparently
complete separation of stare and
church. In North Carolina the rich
county helps develop the less fortu
nate county. Revenues as from
motor licenses go to the state and
are used by the state highway com
mission for state roads. Forsyth and
Mecklenburg counties, two of the
wealthiest, are helping build roads in
Montgomery and Bladen. 'Even coun
ty seats do not determine the loca
tion of a state highway—North Ga
lina is building roads where she needs
them most. But what of South Ca
rolina? Editor Ball says:
‘ ‘The nub of the matter is that if
South Carolina will turn over to the
highway building agency the vehicle
revenues, clothe it with power to
locate roads and with discretion as
to their character of construction,
charging it with the duty to main
tain them properly whatsoever their
character, we can start with a road
building program without straining
the state’s credit, by borrowing ^0,-
000,000 or $10,000,000, and obtain a
first-rate state system as quickly as
though we borrowed $60,(X10,000. On
the other hand, if we are wanting in
the breadth of mind, the common
sense, the honesty and faith in deal
ing with ourselves, to delegate the
money and the power to state agency
to build roads for the whole common
wealth, without puerile concession to
and compromise with every village
seat, without insistence that the
best road run by ‘my school house’
or ‘my farm' or through the neigh
borhood from which ‘my votes come, ’
the sooner we cease our prattle a-
bout state roads and to find our joy in
running around in circles within our
counties and school districts, the
more time we shall have to devote
to other pursuits that will lead us
somewhere.”
In the matter of education. North
Carolina is developing her schools a-
long the same lines that she is de
veloping her roads. She is develop
ing schools with the state idea in
mmd, and not the county idea, and in
these schools she is using just as
many Winthrop-trained teachers,
trained at South Carolina’s expense,
as she can entice over the line by
paying them higher salaries. As
North Carolina develops the process
of enticing South CarolinianB over the
line will not stop with the teachers
and as Editor Ball asks, “Where
will it stop?” Summing up: North
Carolina is developing a common
wealth. South Carolina can’t ignore
her, but can learn from her. “If
North Carolinians haven’t got Andy
Jadcson from us, they haven’t quit
trying,” says Editor Ball. They are
ahead of us on that—they have his
memorial on their side of the line.—
Gastonia Gazette.
types of mind and interest will find at
different institutions that work which
most nearly meets their needs. Local
situations, matters of institutional pol
icy, naturally lead to greater develop
ments in advanced work at a given in
stitution in some fields rather than
others. It would seem logical, there
fore, that women who find at the Uni
versity as juniors and seniors advanced
courses which the University has de-;
veloped, and which are in line with
their serious interests, should be al
lowed to pursue them. Any other pol
icy would, I believe, be a contradiction
in fact of the theory of equality of edu
cational opportunity upon which our
state system of higher education
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 between the institutions at
Greensboro and at Chapel Hill; rather
in this respect they are to be considered
as supplementing each other.
The policy I have outlined is, I be
lieve, fully in accord with the logic of
the situation. It is not 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 under
stood, and I have attempted to clarify
it. I see no reason why it should be
OUR CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
(Frank C. Vilbrandt, Professor of In
dustrial Chemistry, Department of
Chemistry, University of North Caro
lina.)
Has it ever occurred to you how close
ly chemistry is brought home to you in
everyday life? Do you realize what an
important part it is playing in the de
velopment of the state? Excluding
such industries as furniture, foundries,
tobacco, metallurgy, and water puri
fication wherein chemistry plays an im
portant part and in which industries
many chemists are employed, there ex
ist 290 other chemical plants of mote
or less importance in the state.
Compared with some of the more
important industries in the state such
as cotton knitting and cotton mills,
the chemical industries yield greater
production values in proportion to capi
tal invested and laborers employed than
any other class. The cotton mills and
knitting mills numbering approximately
626 in all have an invested capital of
over $231,160,000, employing over 90,-
000 people and yielding $320,000,000
of products. The twenty-three tobacco
plants constituting the industrial side
of tobacco, employing 9,300 people, have
a capital investment of $180,440,000 and
yield $226,000,000 worth of products.
The chemical industries, of which there
changed, save as it changes in detail of
itself naturally through the years, in
terms of the offerings of North Caro
lina College for Women and of the Uni
versity in this or that department. I
believe it is a policy upon which the
friends of both institutions 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 University’s
attitude toward women. Whether it
can or cannot be built at this moment
is a matter which must be carefully
sLudied 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 provi
sion 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 de
sire to, escape. On the contrary, the
University has no deeper satisfaction
than that of proper provision for the
needs of the growing commonwealth
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 be
lieves in equality of educational oppor
tunity for both sexes, and in its duty
to see to it that it does its part to help
make that principle a reality.
are 290 plants, have a capital invest
ment of but $117,600,000 employing but
10,060 people and yielding ^01,600,000
worth of products. These figures do
not include proprietary drugs and medi
cines which belong rightly to the field
of pharmacy, but which the layman
attributes to chemistry. Statistics
show these chemical industries are al
most on a par with our great tobacco
industry, in which we lead the world.
It is evident, therefore, that the
state is as much of a chemical indus
trial state as it is a cotton or tobacco
state. Chemical industries rank third,
following only cotton and tobacco. If
tbe industry were to include all those
allied branches in which chemistry plays
a part, such as metallurgy, water puri
fication, furniture manufacture, and
foundries, it would dwarf all others.
Its interests are many and varied, as
should be, taking care of the wants and
comforts of the people not only in this
state or country but also in foreign
lands.
To watch, safeguard, control, and
operate this giant, men trained in the
fundamentals of chemistry and chemi
cal engineering are economically essen
tial.
Data for Aluminum Company of
America, Badin, N. C., not available
and therefore not included in Chemical
Industrial Data.
RaaK of Indvstries
Arranged to show (1) the capital invested, (2) yearly production, (3) num
ber of plants, and (4) number of employees. The total number of plants is
6,846, with a capital investment of over 953 millioB dollars, of wMch 117 million
are invested in chemical industries alone. The latter industry ranks as third
in the industries of the state.
Data secured and compiled by the Industrial Chemleal Drvision of the
Chemistry Department, University of North Carolina.
Eiaancial Comparisons
Industries
Plants
Employees
Capital Invested Yearly Output Va
Cotton Mills
460
73,600
$200,000,000
$286,000,000
Tobacco Industry
23
9,800
130,440,000
225,000,000
Chemical Plants
290
10,050
117,500,000
201,500,000
Knitting Mills
176
16,600
31,160,000
33.270,000
Furniture Factories 124
14,000
16,000,000
40,000,000
Woolen Mills
9
961
1,800,000
3,600,000
Silk Mills
3
874
2,000,000
1,800,000
Cordage Mills
2
42
66,000
300,000
All others
6,270
60,000
466,000,000
47,260,000
Rating of Chemical Indnstries in North Carolina
Arranged by the different chemical indnstries to show (1) capital invested,
(2) value of plants, (8) number of plants, and (4) yearly production value. From
the data is excluded that of the Aluminum Company of America because
it is not available. The great fertilizer industry with the Virginia-Carolina
Chemical Company’s large holdings easily surpasses the others. Second
stands the enormous cotton seed oil industry, which is to be expected
but even with our enormous forest reserves we can give but last place to
our forest products chemical industry.
Industry
Fertilizers
Cottonseed Oil Products
Leather
Paper and Pulp
Ice
Gas and By-Products
Rubber Fabrics
Ceramics
Dyeing and Mercerizing
Cotton
Turpentine! and Rosin
Plants
Capital In
vested
Value of plants
Estimated
Value Annual
Production
42
$79,760,000
$39,700,000
$31,920,000
56
12,000,000
28,000,000
183,600,000
11
8,360,000
6,600,000
10,660,000
8
6,860,000
4,200,000
6,660,000
65
2,760,000
2,000,000
2,600,000
10
2,600,000
600,000
1,600,000
3
2,200,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
103
2,000,000
1,600,000
7,000,000
3
900,000
2,000,000
670,000
10
6(1,000
70,000
110,000