Editing .MjAxMDQ.Nzg0MDI

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 2: Line 2:
 
lines as the Strode bill, but the co-ordinate idea was more clearly expressed, the provision that co-education should not exist in the undergraduate department remaining the same and the provision for graduate and professional work being left for their manner and terms of development in the hands of the Rector and Visitors. The one addition to this bill was the provision for  the appointment by the Governor of a special board for the women's college, of which board the Rector and the President of the University were to be ex officio members. This bill was defeated in the Senate b a large majority and was not pressed to a vote in the House.
 
lines as the Strode bill, but the co-ordinate idea was more clearly expressed, the provision that co-education should not exist in the undergraduate department remaining the same and the provision for graduate and professional work being left for their manner and terms of development in the hands of the Rector and Visitors. The one addition to this bill was the provision for  the appointment by the Governor of a special board for the women's college, of which board the Rector and the President of the University were to be ex officio members. This bill was defeated in the Senate b a large majority and was not pressed to a vote in the House.
  
A very similar bill was prepared by Mr. Wyndham Meredith and introduced in 1914 in the Senate, with Messrs. Early, Rison, and Wendenburg as patrons, and Messrs. Gordon, Oliver, Field and Page in the House. This bill prohibited co-education in the professional and graduate departments as well as in the undergraduate department. It emphasized the purpose of making women's institution a co-ordinate institution and not a co-educational one in the strict sense. It made the establishment of the college by the Rector and Board more mandatory, carried a small appropriation, provided for a special board for the women's college, but make it advisory and so subject to the established Board of the University itself. This bill, with its salient features intact, was passed by the same Senate that had rejected it two years before by a very large majority, - nine or ten, as I recall. It was defeated in the House by six votes.
+
A very similar bill was prepared by Mr. Wyndham Meredith and introduced in 1914 in the Senate, with Messrs. Early, Rison, and Wendenburg as patrons, and Messrs. Gordon, Oliver, Field and Page in the House. This bill prohibited co-education in the professional and graduate departments as well as in the undergraduate department. It emphasized the purpose
 
+
It was that year that the University Alumni, having failed to meet the educational arguments and the co-ordinate college bulletin with conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of the type of institution that was proposed having been published, began to attack the bill in the name of he common school. From that time on the fight of the Alumni was largely based on what they said would be the choice
+

Please note that all contributions to Transcribe Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Transcribe Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)