PAGE TWO
To Help Something Better Grow
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1925
iJtecuSve. .CommiSiee"-- T Consider Ced
1 rustee
An Editorial
TljONDAY MORNING the petition of our faculty asking that
daughters of University employees be admitted to the
freshman and sophomore years at Carolina will be presented
before the executive committee of the Board of Trustees in
- Raleigh. ; -, -:V: ' V ..
The faculty appeal will be placed before the trustee exe
cutives of Judge L. J. Phipps of Chapel Hill. Along with the
faculty's request that daughters of University employees be
allowed to register in the general college, other documents re
questing the admittance of all Chapel Hill girls to the Uni
versity will be presented: the petition signed last spring by
183 townspeople, the resolutions of the Rotary and Kiwanis
clubs and Parent-Teachers' association, and the recent peti
tion with 200 town signatures sponsored by Jack Frink's ASU.
The petitions of the f aculty and, townspeople were intro-.
duced at the May 31 meeting of the trustees last spring; but
the board, involved in the engineering question, did not give
them formal consideration.
Directed Against Dr. Graham's Order
June, 1935, President Graham recommended to the Board of
Trustees that women students be prohibited from matriculat
ing in the freshman and sophomore years at the Chapel Hill
unit. This order the board approved. Against this ruling the
faculty and town petitions are directed.
The faculty request appealed to President Graham "to
modify the order prohibiting the admission of women to the
freshman and sophomore classes at Chapel Hill to the extent
of permitting daughters of University professors and employ
ees to matriculate for those classes at Chapel Hill at and after
' the beginning of the summer session of 1936."
The townspeople requested "such change in the rules and
regulations goYerning the Chapel Hill unit of the Greater Uni
versity that will permit the registration at the Chapel Hill
unit of women students during their freshman and sophomore
years who reside with their parents within commuting dis
tance of the said University." ,
Faculty Unanimous Against Rule
4 Although only University staff members of professorial
rank (assistant,, associate, and full professors) were solicited
to sign the faculty petition, a total of 151 signatures were
secured. Only four staff members of professoial rank refused
to lend their support; but as reasons for not signing it, even
these four gave considerations not hostile to the petition it
1 self.
Two chief reasons, the faculty members presented, for
opening the general college to their daughters:
(1) "Chapel Hill is the only site of a state institution of
higher learning where there is no other college admitting
freshman and sophomore girls."
(2) "Since salaries of University professors and employ
ees are still about 20 per cent below the 1930 base, and the .
cost of living has increased rapidly within the past two years
and is still increasing, it will be a great hardship, if not an im
possibility, for many professors and University employees
with daughters eligible for college to send them away from
Chapel Hill for their education." - '":.
Arguments the Townspeople Gave
- The local Rotary club, voicing the opinions of the Chapel
Hill townspeople, stated as reasons for allowing all local girls
to enter the University:
"There is no other State supported institution of higher
learning within commuting distance of Chapel Hill ... -
'The parents of a large percentage of the graduates of
the Chapel Hill high school are financially unable to pay the
expenses of the said graduates at any institution of higher
learning 'which would necessitate said students living away
from home . . . ,
"Practically all of the girl graduates of the Chapel Hill
high school could and would attend the Chapel Hill unit of the
Greater University of North Carolina should they be permit
ted to attend the unit during their freshman and sophomore
years.' -v.:
Administrative Committee Balks
Before going to the trustees last spring, the faculty peti
tion first reached the administrative council of the Greater
University. Supported by statements from Deans Hobbs and
House opposing the arguments of the faculty, the administra
tive committee issued a resolution "that the council advise
the President not to recommend the adoption of this petition
when he presents it to the Board of Trustees."
This motion was moved by Dean House and, according to
Ruth Fitzgerald (acting secretary), was seconded by Dean
W. W. Pierson of our graduate school. .'
The reasons the administrative council presented for its
action were:
"Unfair and unwise discrimination between the daugh
ters of faculty members and the equally worthy and equally
needy daughters of other residents of Chapel Hill.
"Opening up again the whole question of consolidation. :
"Discrimination in favor of residents of one community of
the state against residents of other communities in the state."
What About These Objections?
With the request now being made to admit all Chapel
Hill girls to the general college, the first argument of the ad
ministrative council (that to admit daughters of University
. employees would be discrimination against "equally needy
daughters of other residents of Chapel Hill") fades into nothingness.
UDfce Batlp Car Heel1,
The official newspaper of the Publications Union
Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, where it is printed daily except Mondays, and
the Thanksgiving, Christmas and Spring Holidays.
Entered as second class matte? at the post office at
Chapel Hill, N. Ch trader act of Iarch 3, 1879. Sub
scription price, $3.00 for the college year.
Don K. McKee
A. Reed Sarratt, Jr.
T. Eli Joyner...L
Jesse Lewis.... ...
.Editor
....Managing Editor
Business Manager
.....Circulation Manager
. For This Issue
News: Herbert Goldberg. Sports: L. S. Levitch
i f ' Reproduction Of Faculty Petition
Petition Leaders Make Strong Plea
In Letter To President Of University
Dear President Graham:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit to you the enclosed peti
tion, addressed to you and to the Board of Trustees of the University of
North Carolina. This petition had its origin in a meeting, on January
13, of 10 professors who are the fathers of daughters soon to be eligi
ble, or at some time in the future to ber eligible for admission to col
lege. Its object is to ask a modification of the Board order prohibiting
the admission of girls to the freshman and sophomore classes at Chapel
Hill this modification, for reasons given, to be in favor of daughters
of University professors and employees.'
Adopted at the meeting referred to, this petition has been circulated
by Messrs. N. B. Adam, English Bagby, W. S. Bernard, John M. Book
er, Mi S. Breckenridge, J. T. Dobbins, Karl H. Fussier, R. M. Grumman,
A. P. Hudson, J. M. Lear, G. R. MacCarthy, H. F. Munch, A. R. New
some, and E. K. Plyler. Only faculty members of prof essorial , rank
have been solicited to sign it. For various reasons illness, absence from
the University, and failure of the solicitors to see them a number of
professors have not been solicited. Of those solicited, all but four have
signed it. These four, it was reported, gave, as reasons for not signing
it, considerations not hostile to the petition itself. The total number of
those signing it is 151.
It was the opinion of the 10 professors who drew up the petition
that they were not reopening an old question already decided by you
and the Board of Trustees, but that in asking freshman and sophomore
privileges for the daughters of . University professors and employees
they were requesting a modification of the existing Board order so defi
nitely limited in its application to a specific group that it could not be
abused. They feel, in short, that they are raising a new question. More
over, they believe that there is ample precedent for the proposed modi
fication. Since most of them are wholly dependent upon University sal
aries for the support and education of their families, and since the eco
nomic condition of those so situated offers no encouraging outlook for
the education of daughters away from home, they feel further justified
in laying this question before you. In doing so, however, they do not
wish to be understood as unsympathetic toward Chapel Hill citizens
with daughters to be educated.
While laying this petition before you at this particular time, they
are aware that the January 31 meeting of the Board of Trustees will
likely be crowded with matters of graver import. Through us they ex
press their appreciation of the magnitude of your duties and responsK
bilities at such a season, and their averseness to adding to your bur
. dens." For these reasons, they authorize us to assure you that a post
ponement of your consideration of this petition until after the January
session will not be disappointing, but to say, however, that they will
deeply appreciate action early enough, if favorable, to relieve those im
mediately concerned.
A. P. HUDSON, J. M. BOOKER, A. R. NEWSOME
a ivntum
uF ?h WUrohsm CF SOKES &UCU&r -
Hill
. , U) VrAr ,ojrdr of th fcoard ' Xrwataa. ot tha 8niarity c-f
Carolina ,iaue4 la J9SS. ama tuiat jaroMoitd 'fra lMtro--tUtiVJ$
t th rDwtn s4 opkiwor Itm of tba Snlrarsity it
Chapal 6Ulj. . - I " ' ' '
, (2) Chapel Kill 1 tha aly ita f tata lartttwtion f hitfin Unre
in whara thar ia otliar eHs utelttiag f raahnan and Sjio!r
eiii , ' ; - ,
15 a coo.terabl nuaba- of faaully ftaabara of th Ooivrity &f '.mt'i
Cftrolln at Cbpl cJil b 4ttg)ittrs who ar can, or viH iA,
for Miriioa to the tmhmxa. or aophanor in Gtlts$t
- (4) Siao Irie of Jnirity profsor txA npicyes still isiv,l
twt1gf jr bolflf.: th 19iO "be, it tie f litrinf; has ,
cre&i rapidly within ,tb pt two year id la ttUX iccreastc. '.
Hfill be grat hri9U, if aot an iopoBlbiliiyi -for srrsj jaros'ai.-3
wnivrsitj8 coloys with daoghtorx eligibl Vot college to smtA
thR away fror. i?h.pel Hill for their iotion ' - , ' .
T.-.ercfsr, : a. xae uaegrajgned aeaifcer of th faculty of "the UiTerity ?f !.irt.'.-Ww..:-::;.is--ii..arBiij(
t C'rl hill, rpetfully petiioc yoa to nodify tn trr
5: i'-jjrsKloiricR tba afciio;v of wcmea to the frashtssa And sopJicccu'ft
;s tissxt. Cfcapel jilll to th extant f peraittiis; iaufthtcra cf Zr.i
cris jirfes&orB ad Bj)loy to atrisufota for tse olssser a
1 x . S.-xj! bill aftar the siiajing of ttio sunnwr; s3io& rf 15
ill
i
it Sir j'v-vM ,'Vlf y 'J ,
L.
Sllllillllli
(Li: m
The second objection is that admission of University em
ployees' daughters would re-open consolidation. To admit girls
to the lower classes here, the argument goes, means the Wom
an's College would demand the right to enroll men. By the
nature of consolidation itself, however, W. C. U. N. C. is the
Greater University's distinguished college for women. Carolina
is half coeducational By letting in a limited number of fresh
man and sophomore girls and thus furthering the tendencies
towards coeducation here (where men and women are already
together) does not mean that the distinguished college for
women must change its only-for-girls nature and enroll men.
The functions of the two institutions differ.
If to maintain a distinguished college for women, the con
solidation heads must prevent girls from coming to the general-college
of an already half-coeducational University at
Chapel Hill (especially when the functions allocated to the two
schools in the first two years are almost identical), then there's
something wrong, we suggest, with the W. C. U. N. C. nunn
ery idea itself. . "
Lastly, the administrators objected that to admit Uni
versity employees' daughters would be discrimination against
other communities in the state. This, too, is the chief
objection voiced against admitting all Chapel Hill girls to the
general college. It is strange, however that the opposition for
gets that President Graham himself back in 1932 forced
through the trustees a resolution stating "that mature wom
en living or working in Chapel Hill or vicinity can enter the
University as freshmen or sophomores after consideration and
approval of each case by the dean of admissions . . ." When for
two years under this resolution of Dr. Graham's Carolina al
lowed local women to enter the first two years, no hue and
cry was raised by the people of the state that there was dis
crimination against them. The administrative argument, "dis
crimination !" strangely enough, seems to have cropped up on
ly since the 1935 trustees action.
Justice and Improvement
Admission of Chapel Hill girls to the general college here
would be a step towards equalizing the now unwholesome ra
tio between men and women students on the campus. With
the general college women living in their homes, social prob
lems would be at a minimum and no additional dormitories
would be necessary to provide for the increase in registration.
Professors would receive a compensation for their sliced sala
ries; and local girls, who otherwise would be deprived of an
advanced education, would have the opportunity to attend col
lege. Justice and progress demand the admission of Chapel
Hill girls to the freshman and sophomore years of this Uni
versity. List Of Faculty Petition Signers
Resolution Of Local Rotary Club
- . . ,-
THAT WHEREAS, the present regulations of the Trust
ees of the Greater University of North Carolina prohibit wom
en sudents from entering the Chapel Hill unit of the said Uni
versity during their fresnman and sophomore years, and, ,
WHEREAS, there are graduated each year from the
Chapel Hill high school approximately 30 girls who reside ei
tner in Chapel Hill or Carrbofo or within conlmuting distance
of the Chapel Hill unit of the said University, and, .
i WHEREAS, there is no other State supported institution
of higher learning within commuting distance of Chapel Hill,
WHEREAS, the parents of a large percentage of the grad
uates of the Chapel Hill high school are financially unable to
pay the expenses of the said graduates at any institution of
higher learning which would necessitate said students living
away from home, and,
WHEREAS, practically all of the girl graduates of the
Chapel Hill high school could and would attend the Chapel
Hill unit of the Greater University of North Carolina should
hey be permitted to attend the said unit during their fresh-
Adams, N. B.
Adams, Raymond W.
Akers, Susan G.
Bagby, English
Bailey, J. Q'.
Baity, H. G.
Beale, H. K.
.Beard, J. G.
Bears, G. D.
Bernard, W. S.
Bernstein, E. M.
Boggs, R. S.
BondJS. P.
Booker, J. M.
Bost, R. W.
Bradshaw, F. F.
Breckenridge, M. S.
Browne, E. T.
Brown, K. J.
Buchanan, D. H.
Bullitt, J. B.
Burlage, H. M.
Caldwell, W. E.
Cameron, F. K.
Carmichael, C.
Carroll, D. D.
Chadbourn, J. H.
Chang, Y. Z.
Coffman, G. R.
Coker, R. E.
Coker; W. C.
Cornwell, O. K.
Costello, D. P.
Couch, J. N.
Couch, W. T.
Cowden, D; J.
Crane, H. W.
Crockf ord, W. D.
Dashiell, J. F.
Dey, W. M.
Dobbins, J. T.
Donnelly, G. L.
Downs, R. B.
Edmister, F. H.
Emery, S. A.
Emory, S. T.
Ericson, E. E.
Farrar, P. C.
Fessler, J. W.
Friederich, W. P.
Frazer, K. C.
Fussier, K. H.
Garner, L. L.
Garrett, M. B.
Giduz, Hugo
Grumman, R. M.
Gwynn, J. M.
Hanf t, F. W.
Harland, J. P.
Harrer, G. A.
Heath, M. S.
Henderson,"" A.
Hickerson, T. F.
Hill, M. A.
Hobbs, R. J. M.
Hobbs, S. H.
Hoefer, E. G.
Howard, George
Howell, A. C.
HoyleV. A.
Huddle, J. W.
Hudson, A. P.
Huse, H. R.
Jacobs, M. L.
Jenkins, W. S.
Jocher, Katherine
Johnson, Cecil
Johnson, Guy B.
Johnson, W. R.
. Jordan, A. M.
Knight, E. W.
Lasley, J. W.
Lawrence, Geo. H.
Lear, J. M.
Lear, J. E.
Leavitt, S. E.
Lefler, H. T.
Linker, J. B.
Lyons, J. C.
''MacCarthy, G. R.
Mack, E., Jr.
MacPherson, D. A.
McCall, F. B.
McChesriey, E. W.
Mcintosh, A. C.
McKee, W.J.
McKie, George
Mackie, E. L.
Mangum, C. S.
Manning, I. H.
Markham, E. C.
Metzenthin, E. C.
Meyer, H. D.
Miller, W. J.
Mulder, J. E.
Munch, H. F.
Nelson, R. W.
Newsome, A. R.
Noe, T. P., Jr.
Odum, H. W.
Olsen, W. A.
Paine, G. L.
Peacock, E. E.
Pegg, C. H.
Perkins, E. M.
Pierson, W. W., Jr.
Plyler, E. K.
Preston, C. E.
Prouty, W. F.
Robson, C. B.
Rose, A. S.
Ruark, A. E.
Russell, J. C.
Russell, Phillips
Sanders, S. G.
Schwenning, G. T.
Sharpe, R. B.
Slocum, E. A.
Smith, G. W.
Spruill, C. P.
Staab, H. H.
Stoutiemire, S. A.
Stuhlman, Otto, Jr.
Taylor, G. C.
Taylor, M. D.
Trimble, R. M.
Totten, H. R.
Trabue, M. R.
Van Hecke, M. T.
Vance, Rupert
Wettach, R. H.
Wheeler, J. H.
Wiley, W. L.
Wflson, H. V.
Winsor, A. S.
Winkler, E. W.
Wolf, H. D.
"Wo&dhouse, E. J.
.Woosley, J. B.
. Zimmermann, E. W.
Zucker, A. E.
man and sophomore years.
NOW, THEREFOREBE IT RESOLVED by the Chapel
Hill Rotary Club in regular meeting assembled on the 20th day
of May, 1936, that the Board of Trustees of the Greater Uni
versity of North Carolina be and the said Board is hereby re
quested to change said regulations so as to permit girls living
within commuting distance of the Chapel Hill unit of said
University and who are otherwise qualified to attend the
Chapel Hill unit of the said University during their freshman
and sophomore years.
That a copy of this resolution be presented to the Board
of Trustees of the Greater University of North Carolina" at its
meeting-in Greensboro, N. C, on the 30th day of May. 1936,