New-York tribune., 1920-05-12
The Mans S Case
Logic in Behalf of the Colum.
bia LaW School

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: In thus answering the implica-
tions Of your editorials on the subjec,
Of the admission of women students
to Columbia Law School and the letter
printed by you and headed "A Call for
Logic I am not trying to constitute
myself spokesman for the student body
OF Columbia Law School, but the fol-
lowing argument against the admission
Of women to this institution is sub
mltted for your consideration. First Of
all, 1t seems to me that the real burden
of proof of establishing the desirability
Of the admission of women is on those
who are in favor Of it, and they should
endeavor to do this by giving specific
reasons why the present rule Of the
school should be changed.
Second. there are prob ems brought
up and discussed frankly in the courses
in criminal law, domestic relations ami
IN torts which it would not be proper
or desirable to discuss IN mixed classes,
even with all the seriousness in the
world. by persons Of breeding ana
sensibility. | emphasize the last two
words. They were chosen advisedy.
This objection may be open to attack
upon strictly theoretical grounds by
those who choose TO shut their eyes to
the human element in the matter Blu.
where the human equation is concerned
practlcability must often override
theory. We must take conditions as
they are. There are still a great num-
ber OF people who maintain the idea:
of our elders as to what is proper, al
though being at the same time perfect
ly familiar with the arguments for
other standards and the way those ar
guments work out in practice. 1t is al
right for young women 10 learn what
the law is in relation TO such situations
hut the place so 10 learn is not in
mixed class of young men and women.
Medical schools are NOT a good analogy
for there the principal concentration o.
the intellect is upon some physical
object before the students, whereas IT
law school these situations referred
to must be discussed in the abstract.
Another objection is that the
presence of girl students would be
liable to encourage natural social in
clinations to the partial neglect Of
studies. This inclination should not be
given an opportunity to intrude upon
ones working hours. The bona-hde ad-
missions of both men and women stu
dents at other graduate schools where
co-education is the rule strongly bear
out this assertion The question o.
women's rights and co-education should
not be confused, for the two are no.
at all synonymous.
Finally, the object Of the school, a
has been stated, is 20 tram It's stu
dents for the actual practice Of the
law. The great majority Of the maze
students study law with this intention
The great majority Of the women s'u
dents do not have this intention
though their motives for studying
are perfectly praiseworthy. 0ae gH'
may wish to study law TO aid her IN
business career; another may have
large estate and wish 10 learn 20 hana''
1t herself; still another may desire %
study law for the undoubted mental ae
velopment such a study viii bring OF
as has been suggested by feniS's
contributor to your columns, she may
wish to study law so that in case 'ne
married lawyer she would be bet'e'
able to sympathize with him IN NE
work. These are perfectly laudao's
motives, surely. But the admission o.
these young women to Columbia LsN
School would not be in line with 'n'
purpose of the school and would Only
result in the exclusion OF some you's
men who wished to become lawyers
DE WITT MASON.
New York, May TO- 1920. =