The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 65, No. 12, Ed. 1 Friday, October 28, 1977 Page: 3 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The text of Dean Brown's report to Dr. Hackerman
1. The first part of my recom-
mendation is that Will Rice Col-
lege should change from single
sex to coed at the beginning of
fall 1978, to be followed by
Jones College and Lovett College
in fall 1979; and if these changes
are approved, that all three Col-
leges should be so notified and
should begin making plans for
the transition this spring.
The recommendation which 1
received last week from the Mas-
ters and College presidents joint-
ly was that the same three Col-
leges should convert to coed
over the next two years, but that
Jones and Will Rice should con-
vert in 1978-79, followed by
Lovett in 1979-80.
2. The second part of my recom-
mendation is that the provisions
concerning entirely separate
floors and exterior doorways in
the original arrangements for the
first two coed Colleges should
no longer be binding, but that
the assignment of spaces to men
or women should be a responsi-
bility of the individual coed Col-
lege in each instance, subject to
consultation with and final ap-
proval by the Master of the Col-
lege. Guidelines would be consi-
derations of privacy, propriety,
the location of interior parti-
tions, bathrooms, and other
architectural features of the indi-
vidual College, and finally the
wishes of all on-campus mem-
bers of the College.
This portion of the recom-
mendation is based on the res-
ponsible attitude shown by
Baker and Hanszen and on the
desirability of a space assign-
ment policy which will allow us
to match spaces with demand as
flexibly as possible under appro-
priate conditions. Though a gen-
eral initial estimate of the num-
ber of spaces to be designated
for men and women should be
based on the proportion of
either sex in the freshman class
and in the undergraduate stu-
dent body as a whole, the coed
Colleges should be able to res-
pond to the demand for on-cam-
pus space by incoming and con-
tinuing students in order to
maintain high occupancy and, in
years of overdemand, to equalize
the waiting lists for men and
women in the eight Colleges
overall proportionally.
3. The Jhird part of my recom-
mendation is that any decision
affecting the coed Colleges over
the next two years or thereafter
should not be binding for a fixed
term as before, but that, begin-
ning in 1978-79, the Dean of
Undergraduate Affairs should
each fall submit to you a report
on the Colleges, including, when-
ever appropriate, a recommenda-
tion for changes in the provi-
sions governing the coed Col-
leges or a possible further in-
crease in their number. These re-
ports should include figures on
College occupancy, the demand
for on-campus space, enrollment
figures by sex for new students
and the undergraduate student
body as a whole, and other in-
formation or material which
may be pertinent. These reports,
if adopted, would be prepared
in consultation with the Mas-
ters and Colleges in the spring
and early fall, as well as with
the assistance of the Registrar
and the Assistant to the Presi-
dent for Admissions and
Records.
Supplementary Notes on the
Recommendation
The guidelines which you gave
me last fall were:
a. that either one or two but
not more than two Colleges
might be considered for conver-
sion to coed at this time
b. that the number of beds
available for men and women
should remain essentially the
same as at present
c. that Richardson and Brown
should not be considered for
conversion at this time.
Three of the Masters reported to
me that you had subsequently
agreed to consider a recommen-
dation for the conversion of as
many as three Colleges, and that
if there were compelling reasons
for Richardson to be made coed,
you would take these into ac-
count. On this basis we pro-
ceeded.
Jones split almost evenly...
with a small majority
favoring conversion
In August, September, and
again this month, the Masters
and presidents met repeatedly to
discuss different aspects of the
possible expansion. During Sep-
tember a poll based on a uni-
form questionnaire was con-
ducted in each of the eight Col-
leges following open informa-
tional meetings. All the Colleges
made an effort to secure respon-
ses from as many on-campus and
off-campus members as possible.
We emphasized in advance of the
poll that the results would be
carefully considered, but that
they would not be decisive in
themselves over other consider-
ations. In fact the poll provided
very useful information, as you
can see from the attached sum-
mary. (The poll results were
summarized in the October 6
Thresher.—ed.)
The returns showed a large ma-
jority overall of on and off-cam-
pus students supporting the ba-
sic proposition that the number
of coed Colleges should be in-
creased (question 1). Of three
specific options offered on the
ballot in Question 2, the highest
preference overall was given to
the conversion of two men's Col-
leges and one women's College.
The conversion of two men's
Colleges and no women's Col-
leges, though theoretically a
fourth option, was not included
on the ballot because it did not
appear to any of us as a feasible
alternative, given the current
proportion of men to women
on campus and the second guide-
line.
Lovett and Will Rice, both of
which showed strong support for
a change to coed (see summary),
were subsequently chosen as the
two men's Colleges to convert.
Jones, however, which was to be
the women's College to convert,
split almost evenly on agreeing
or disagreeing with such a
change, with a small majority
favoring conversion but 29%
opposing. From comments on
several Jones ballots, many of
the Jones women object to an
arrangement which would leave
Brown as the only women's sin-
gle sex College and thus destroy
the principle of the random as-
signment of new students to col-
leges. Other Jones women sim-
ply prefer a single sex College.
As we studied numbers, the
possibility of a sequential con-
version of three Colleges over
two or even three years began to
appear more feasible and desir-
able than the simultaneous con-
version of three Colleges. We
debated three possibilities: two
Colleges next year, and one in
1979-80 (the recommendation
of the Masters and presidents),
one College next year and two in
'79-80 (my recommendation),
one College in each of the next
three years.
I agree with the Masters and
presidents that Will Rice should
be the men's College to convert
next year. An important consi-
deration, though not the only
one, is that Lovett will have a
new Master in 1978-79. I be-
lieve, however, that the change
in Jones would be more success-
ful if it is postponed a year in
view of the narrow majority sup-
porting the conversion. This
would give Jones a longer time
to prepare for the conversion in-
cluding the opportunity to noti-
fy incoming students and their
parents next year that Jones
would convert to coed in 1979-
80.
Because of the pivotal position
of Jones in any plan to convert
more than one men's College, I
made a further tabulation of the
Jones ballots. Though all four
classes are divided on the issue,
stronger support for the change
lies in the current sophomore
and junior classes, and greater re-
sistance to a conversion in the
freshman and senior women.
Whatever the final decision on
the conversion may be, the Col-
leges are agreed that a descrip-
tion of the coed Colleges needs
to be sent out to incoming stu-
dents so that everyone will have
a clearer understanding of how a
coed College is set up and how it
functions. For your information,
I may add that the Master of
Jones and the presidents of both
Jones and Brown voted against
the majority opinion that Jones
should convert next year.
If Will Rice converts next year,
two women's Colleges and three
men's Colleges will remain single
sex. If Lovett and Jones convert
the following year, the propor-
tion of single sex Colleges re-
mains one women's College and
two men's Colleges. Either of
these arrangements appears to
me socially acceptable. On the
oter hand, if Will Rice and Jones
should both be converted next
year, Brown would be left for a
year with three single sex men's
Colleges which seems socially
undesirable.
It is difficult to predict
. . .whether in the next
decade we shall move
toward the conversion
of all the colleges. . .
The third alternative of a se-
quential change of Will Rice,
Jones, and Lovett, one each year
over the next three years, would
be feasible as far as numbers are
concerned, but it seems unneces-
sarily protracted and undesirable
in view of the very positive sup-
port for conversion to a coed
College which Lovett has ex-
pressed.
If Will Rice is approved for
conversion next year, it can be-
gin its transition period as a coed
College with the assignment of
freshman women, some transfers
from Brown and perhaps from
the two coed Colleges and some
adjustment if necessary in the
number of women assigned to
Baker and Hanszen. My reccorn-
mendation is that no fixed quota
of spaces for men and women be
set in advance.
For the current year the over-
all percentage of women in the
undergraduate student body is
34.3% which is exactly the same
as the space assigned to women
in the eight Colleges at normal
occupancy. The percentage of
women among the freshmen ad-
mitted this past August is 35.6%,
and among freshmen and trans-
fers combined, 35.7%. Since all
Colleges save one third of their
beds for freshmen, particular at-
tention needs to be given in the
coed Colleges to the proportion
of men to women in the fresh-
man class and to the demand for
on-campus space by incoming
men and women. The coed Col-
leges also need to consider
the overall demand by each sex.
Last month's figures for occu-
pancy in the Colleges showed 18
men still on waiting lists, with
six vacant spaces in Richardson
and Wiess which have no waiting
lists, and 38 women on waiting
lists with no vacancies for
anywhere. For this reason I in-
cluded the desirability of more
proportionally equal waiting lists
for men and women in the sec-
ond part of my recommenda-
tion. The addition of one or
more coed Colleges should help
us deal with shifting numbers
and shifting demands. With the
experience of the transition per-
iod in Hanszen and Baker behind
us, we can avoid the problems
caused by the abrupt reduction
of space for men which occurred
at that time. The conversion of
Jones and Lovett in 1978-79
should balance out the number
of men assigned to Jones with
the number of women assigned
to Lovett.
During any transition period
the Masters intend to facilitate
transfer into or out of single sex
Colleges so far as space will per-
mit. Ballots from the poll last
month indicate that the number
of requests for transfer would
probably be small. Students ra-
pidly develop an attachment to
their College. Several students
who voted against a conversion
to coed for their particular Col-
lege nevertheless said they would
accept or even strongly support
the change (see the summary fig-
ures for question 3 and question
4).
The recommendation for a
more flexible space assignment
policy in the coed Colleges
which allows each College to
work out the most appropriate
designation of space for men and
women within its buildings, sub-
ject to the approval of the Mas-
ter, is in response to problems
which have arisen every year
since the coed Colleges were
established. I have every confi-
dence that the Colleges would
handle such a responsibility in
an exemplary manner.
I hope the third part of the
recommendation needs no fur-
ther explanation. It is difficult
to predict at this time whether
in the next decade we shall move
toward the conversion of all the
Colleges, as the ad hoc Commit-
tee recommended last spring, or
whether there will always be a
substantial minority of students
who for their own reasons prefer
single sex living as at present.
I shall be happy to discuss any
of this with you. The Colleges
are aware that no final decision
on this matter will be made be-
fore the Board meeting in
December.
Senate . . .
(continued from page 1)
tions, would not affect election
procedures at all.
Baker senator Barbara Ladner,
author of the proposal, secon-
ded Bounds' motion to recom-
mit the bill to committee, rather
than "trying to haphazardly
amend this (bill) on the floor."
After discussing other options al-
ready available under the current
by-laws, the Senate voted unani-
mously to send the motion back
to the committee, and then
quickly voted to adjourn.
the rice thresher, friday, october 28, 1977—page 3
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Parker, Philip. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 65, No. 12, Ed. 1 Friday, October 28, 1977, newspaper, October 28, 1977; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245349/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.