New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-08
WOMEN IN LAW SCHOOLS
WHY Should They Be Excluded
from Columbia2
TIC the Editor Of The Tribune.

Sir: The day after reading your
editorial on women Doctors In Eng
land with its apt reference to the Co
Iumbia Law Schools obdurate exclusion
Of women, came across this state
ment. made by President Currell OF
the University Of South Carolina In
regard to the recent admission OF
women TO the law courses OF that uni
versity:
ain 1894. by an act OF the General AS
sembly. women were admitted to any
courses in the university, regular or
snecial. for which they should be quail
fed The general impression seems TO
nrevail that the above does not. inclnde
the law school This is mistake, aris-
ing. doubtless, from the fact that
women are not yet admitted to the bar
in South Carolina. Their right to prac-
tise can only be decided by the Legs
lature and the Supreme Court. Mean
time they are clearly entitled, according
TO the dean of the law school, TO take
anv courses in law that they may de-
sire subject to the regulations IN re-
gard to entrance that govern all other
applicants for admission"
Thus. even in South Carolina, where
women are not yet allowed to practise
law. il has been decided that they
sbonld nevertheless have the same OPP
portunities that men have for OBTAIN
ing n legal education. But, 1t may be
Objected. the University of South Caro-
lima il state institution, while Co.
lumbia University is not: 1t would De
manifestly unfair for the former 10
exclude women from any OF its courses
Whereas the Columbia Law School, not
being supported by the state and not
being under state control, is entitled 10
nreserve its tradition Of insecurity II
il chooses to do so-just as the ordl-
nary private school may restrict itseit
10 the teaching of boys or TO the teach
ing OF girls. 1t is quite true, OF course
that the State of New York could not
coerce Columbia into admitting women
10 its law school. In this respect the
case is different from that Of a state
university. But while they cannot
coerce. the people of the state can and
should endeavor to persuade. The case
differs from that of private element
ary school in two important respects.
In the first place, the thing TO De
considered with an elementary school
is merely the advantage or disadvan-
taee of co-education-as such-whether
il is better for boys and girls to be
taught together or separately. Inc
question of feasibility or expense hard
ly enters in; there can easily be good
grammar school in every town, a good
high school in every city. But the
higher up one goes in the educational
world the more sparse does the popu-
lation become, and the more imprac-
ticable it is to maintain two separate
educational systems, one for men and
one for women.
Again, in the case of the ordinary
private school, whether endowed or un-
endowed, any restriction as to sex is
almost always the result OF the express
wish of the owner or founder. The
trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy,
for example, would have no more right
TO admit girls than the trustees of a
Home for Aged and INDECENT Females
would have a right to take in aged and
INDECENT males. A college or university
also, of course, may be bound by the
conditions of its endowment to remain
cternally male or female. But II there
is no such limitation, express or I'M
mistakably implied, in the endowment,
then there should be none in practice.
A school of law is an institution which
is, in legal phrase, affected with a
public interest" Certainly it is not in
accordance with this interest that, in
a state where women are allowed to
practise law, they should be excluded
without cause from the best law school
that the state contains.
MARGARET LADD FRANKLIN.
New York, Oct. 20, 1916.