Year: 1872

II KIND OF optimism tnat WouIu lel
well enough alone, and would only
change when the demand for such
action isimperativc and well nigh uni,
versal. The gentlemen of the majori-
ty thoroughly represent the Conserva-
tive element in culture. In conduct
Quoting the discussion they enunciate
three distinct propositions for consid-
Grafton. The first is that full proyis-
ion for the highest and most compre-
prehensive education of women is re-
quired the second is that the joint
education of the sexes in colleges and
universities is desirable /; the third is
that it is desirable to admit both sexes
to Williams College. They admit
the first proposition without
argument, and rejoice at the efforts
which have been lately put forth to
give to women a broader, and more
liberal education in separate institu-
tions like Vassar and other female
colleges.


In this way they affect to dispose Of
the just claims of women to the
broadest culture, and proceed to dis
cuss the feasibility of her admission
to colleges and universities. They
cannot well admit the second PROPOSE
tion without admitting the third, 50
the consideration of the second is
evaded and the whole question made
to hinge OH the unadvisibility Of adj
hitting women to Williams This so
narrows the discussion down that adj
verse conclusion is reached by the
mere force of local prejudiees. The
The reasoning is sometimes after this
wise: Due weight is given to the sue
cessful operation of eo-education but
it is claimed that there has not vet
been sufficient experience to even ap-
proximately determine the advisibility
of the system. They claim the ques-
tion of co-education is vet as liable to
be decided in the negative as in the
affirmative. Without considering at
this stage of the argument the results
of the practical application of the
system where it is in operation, they
try to show the truth of the assertion
that the chances of the success or
failure of co-education are evenly
balanced They admit that the sue
cess Of co-educatiOn in academies is
an argument as far as it goes, but
claim that it does not go far enough
to prove that more mature men and
women would get along well under
the ordinary discipline of the college
and university. Besides, the studies
of the academy and the normal school
are more elementary, and therefore
more essential to both men and wo-
men than is the college course. They
admit that Oberlin is a success, but
state in explanation of that success
that very few women take up the
regular college course, but cOnfne
themselves to the preparatory, which
is about the same course as that pur-
sued in Eastern academies.


Again, it is admitted that other
colleges in the West according to
their own showing, have received wO-
men on equal terms with men to the
advantage of both the institutions
and the new candidates. But they
reason that, while it may be expedient
to educate the sexes together in the
West, it does not follow on that ac-
count that it is expedient to educate
them together in the East. The col
leges in the West succeeded under the
new system because there was no
other adequate provision for female
education, except that offered by the
colleges The system is naturally
with the growth of the country,
while in the East an entirely opposite
state of things exists. While public
opinion in the west is strongly in
favor of it, in the East it is not so
sufficiently decided to warrant its
success. A few Eastern colleges are
mentioned as of late throwing open
their doors to women, but the success
of their venture has not been fully
determined on account Of the short
time that has elapsed since the trial
began. From these considerations
the majority conclude that there has
been no such general practical DEM
onstration of the wisdom of co-educa-
tion as would justify them in treating
it as more than a mooted proposition
which may be right and may likewise
be wrong. An argument against the
admission Of women to Williams is
drawn from the fact that it was es-
tablished to educate young men, and
as an institution for young men it had
received the many generous gifts of
the commonwealth and of individuals.


The majority concede that when it
is generally admitted to be best that
both sexes should be admitted as stu
dents, the trustees ought to so modify
the statutes as to enable young wo-
men to enter; but until it is so admitted
the trustees would not be justified in
establishing a system not contempla-
ted by those who founded the college.
Again, Williams College is in no
sense university; and, as the exper-
ience of Western colleges go to show
that very young women would nat
urally pursue the same::eourse marked
out for young men, it is claimed that
the course at Williams would be un-
fitted for young women, and that un-
less a separate course were establish
very few would avail themselves of
the advantages of the college. The
arguments, therefore, that apply to
other colleges do not apply to
Williams, limited as it is to one de-
partment of instruction. The divis-
ion of public opinion on the subject is
urged as another reason for delaying
the admission Of women. The wo-
men themselves do not demand that
the colleges be thrown open to them.
Should they claim that great injustice
was done in excluding them from col
leges,it would be good argument for
opening the doors of institutions now
exclusively occupied by men. The
friends of the college as a majority
do not desire it. There are, it is said
more mothers who would object to
the college because women were ad-
mitted as StudantS than there are