The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-03-07
Strode-Shackelford Bill and
Campaign for Coeducahon

Editor Virg!niau:
Sir.--The alumni of the University
.of Virginia continue to forward their
protests against co-education and add
names to the roll already puhlishe I,
showing the absurdity Of the state
ments recently made that the oppost-
ton is confined to small group of
obstructiontsts dali diminishing in
nun Beers" e.c.
The Strobe shackelford biz, the
only university bin" now before the
legislature, cannot be considered by
itself, nor as a single issue. The ad T.
iVocates of co-eiucaUon, haFinr fat'et
] TO show sufficient strength to even get
e vote on the Early bill in the sonata.
or the Houston McNutt bill In the
house, are conce ntracing the. efforts
on the STROBE Shackejford bah admit
t'r thar they desire it as an opening
,EEe 80 all they have been striving
tcr. 1t Is. Therefore but q part OF the
cam Da!Eu which has been constructed
Tor several years, and If the legtsla-
. 'uro cnacts this bill. II WIN not merely
enact a hill admitting women to post
graduate work and n the study of
medicine, but It will have made the
/ beginning in a heme for co-educa-
ton at the university n all depart
ments
The attitude Of the alumni can be
seen by the following quotation from
8 letter from The Hon. A ]. Montague,
referring 20 the group of bills now re-
sduoed 10 one
n, ( =
and allied bills l have given the mat
ter q deal ~ thought The chan e
that win be accomplished by this legis-
lation spells the end Of the university
as great institution, IN my opinion
Some few years since the passa &c OF
a somewhat similar bin would have
given me tN- opportunity OF sending
my daughter 70 the university. / not
onl would not have sent her 10 The
university but I ehould promptly have
recalled the~efrom my only son. who
was a student there AT that time"
The secretar OF the New Xork chap.
ter In speaking Of co-education.
writes;
Il have no hesitation In saying
however, that the mem bers Of the Ne~
York Alumni association are practt-
caliy unanimously opposed 10 co-edu-
cation at the university. As secretary
of the New York association, / have
vide acquaintance among the Ave
hundred odd alumni in and around
New York city. l have heard co
ordination and co-education AZ tbs
!. university discussed many times. and
I have yet to hear an alumnus say
that he favored coeducatlon, On the
contrar 81 is always condemned"
The following are some OF the names
which should be added to the recently
=. published list of alumni opposed 10 co.
education
Hon Henry c. Stuart, ex- governor
Of Virginia; DR.. Lewis Holiday Or
ange county; ]. WaverlY Thomas
I Smithfeld, Va; Judge Thomas B. Rob
ertson. Hopewell. Va; Hon David A
Harrison. HopeweH Va, Milton c
Elliott, counsel federal reserve beard
Washington, D. c.. Judge John Ruth.
erfoord. j. Bradford Kite, " Harri,
son Blair, L. NJ, Williams, Plnckney
Powers, s. r. Cowardin. Rev. T. c
Johneon.
The Delaware chapter telegraphs its
opposition: the Huntington. w. Va.
chapter is also opposed
The Charleston, W Va. chapter
TELEGRAPH as follows THE Charles
ton chapter, alumni, nftv-two ir mum.
ner are soli6 unit IN opposing co.
education At Virginia university"
The Greensboro, =. O., chapter votes
} unanimously against coeducat!on.
From Charleston, s. C.. comes ms
following, the chapter having already
made protest against coeducatior:
The undersigned alumni of the
+, Charleston. 3 c.. chapter of the Uni
versity OF Virginia desire to go on
Irecord as opposed TO cosaucation al
the University OF Virginia: Earl Sloan.