Difference between revisions of ".MjAxMDQ.Nzg0MDI"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Removed protection from ".MjAxMDQ.Nzg0MDI")
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
-2-
 
-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.
+
[marginal note above the typescript, possibly intended to be inserted before "line" below but that seems unlikely]
 +
It was [illegible] a coordinate "state college for women" affiliated with the univ
 +
 
 +
 +
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 by 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 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.
 +
[marginal note next to the above paragraph]
 +
An amendment
 +
was added
 +
providing the womens college
 +
should be on the
 +
side of C'ville
 +
opposite the
 +
Univ.
 +
 +
 +
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 the common school. From that time on the fight of the Alumni was largely based on what they said would be the choice between a women's college at the University and the promotion of the common schools of the state.
  
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
+
In 1916 an almost identical bill, drawn along the
 +
same lines, was introduced in the Senate by Messrs. Early,
 +
Rison, Wendenburg, Lacy, and Strode. Mr. Strode reappeared
 +
in the Senate in 1916, having left it in 1910 after the
 +
presentation of the first bill. This same bill had as its
 +
patrons in the House Messrs. Houston, Willis, Fuller, Myers,
 +
Clement, Hobson, Love, Gordon, Metz, Cousins, Burk, Birrell
 +
Pitts, Williams, Jones, Pence, Page, Steck, Gilpin, and Moss.
 +
The bill was fought bitterly by the Alumni, assisted and
 +
partly lead by Dr. James E. Cannon. This, as you will remember
 +
was the Prohibition Legislature. Dr. Cannon's fight, as well
 +
as that of the Alumni, took the lines of opposing the bill
 +
in the name of the common school. His paper, the Virginian,

Latest revision as of 08:20, 5 December 2019

-2- [marginal note above the typescript, possibly intended to be inserted before "line" below but that seems unlikely] It was [illegible] a coordinate "state college for women" affiliated with the univ


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 by 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. [marginal note next to the above paragraph] An amendment was added providing the womens college should be on the side of C'ville opposite the Univ.


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 the common school. From that time on the fight of the Alumni was largely based on what they said would be the choice between a women's college at the University and the promotion of the common schools of the state.

In 1916 an almost identical bill, drawn along the same lines, was introduced in the Senate by Messrs. Early, Rison, Wendenburg, Lacy, and Strode. Mr. Strode reappeared in the Senate in 1916, having left it in 1910 after the presentation of the first bill. This same bill had as its patrons in the House Messrs. Houston, Willis, Fuller, Myers, Clement, Hobson, Love, Gordon, Metz, Cousins, Burk, Birrell Pitts, Williams, Jones, Pence, Page, Steck, Gilpin, and Moss. The bill was fought bitterly by the Alumni, assisted and partly lead by Dr. James E. Cannon. This, as you will remember was the Prohibition Legislature. Dr. Cannon's fight, as well as that of the Alumni, took the lines of opposing the bill in the name of the common school. His paper, the Virginian,