Mayhew Report: Appendix B

Report and Recommendations to the Long-Range Planning Committee from the Committee to Study Coeducation, Colgate University, September 1967

The Committee members wish to acknowledge the leadership of the late James A. Storing, Provost and Chairman of the Coeducation Committee until February 1 1967. His patience, insight, and congenial nature guided the members in their research and analysis and formulated the recommendations outlined below. Honoring Dean Storing’s services to Colgate, President Barnett remarked, “this institution is his monument.” In this name spirit, the committee members hope that the future Colgate envisioned by them and reflected in this report, would more than ever constitute a monument to his wisdom.

The Committee to Study Coeducation

Historical Perspective

Separate education for men and women developed in the northeastern states through historical accident because the latter were excluded from higher education until the middle of the 19th century. When the colonial and early national colleges came into existence, their aim was to prepare young men civil service and the professions, all of which were closed to women. As women forced their way into teaching, and to a limited extent to other professions, they demanded the same education as offered in men’s colleges. Female seminaries responded to these pressures and slowly evolved into colleges offering nearly the same curriculum as that of the prestigious institutions for men.

Erosion of separate education for men and women commenced in the 19th century with the founding of private Midwestern colleges and continues unabated to the present. In 1930, the United States Office of Education listed 73 nondenominational liberal arts colleges for women, by 1964, only 37 remained. Mabel Newcomer reports in A Century of Higher Education for American Women, that 21 of that 78 had converted to coeducation by 1959. Of those persisting as women’s schools, about one-fourth admit male students into specific programs and courses. Further, many of these lie in close proximity to male or coeducational schools and coordinate academic extracurricular programs with them in varying degrees. Of the many institutions which originally restricted admittance to men, there remained only 29 nondenominational liberal arts colleges for men in 1964. Many of these maintained coordinate colleges or shared facilities and faculty with neighboring women’s institutions.

Breaking from centuries old traditions, many Roman Catholic institutions have introduced coeducation or coordinate education in recent years. As for the Ivy League, the undergraduate colleges of Brown, Harvard, and Columbia have long sine passed into the ranks of mixed education. The small liberal arts colleges, too, have faced this issue. Representing only a partial listing, Muhlenberg, Kenyon, and Hamilton have either admitted women or will establish coordinate colleges in the near future. Amherst, in cooperation with Smith, Mount Holyoke, and the University of Massachusetts, not only allows cross registration but plans a new coeducational college, Hampshire, to join the federation. Wesleyan’s committee to study the admission of undergraduate women appears to parallel our own efforts, and we await their report with great interest. Williams is presently studying the feasibility of establishing a coordinate women’s college on Mount Hope Farm. Recently Yale and Vassar announced a joint committee to study the possibility of moving Vassar from her present location to a site in New Have. President Gobeen of Princeton announced in the University’s student newspaper that “it is inevitable that, a tom some point in the future, Princeton is going to move into the education of women. The only questions now are those of strategy, priority, and timing.” Although Dartmouth has issued no official statement reflecting its own concern for this matter, that institution has studied the matter and continues to explore ways and means of incorporating the feminine view in its educational program. One measure undertaken by Dartmouth involves cooperative book discussion groups with students from women’s colleges. With the tide clearly discernible, the present Committee had to analyze Colgate’s position relevant to comparable institutions and her commitment to the aims of higher education in the future.

Expansion -Inevitable and Desirable

The Committee found most compelling the arguments for expansion of the enrollment of the present institution. Public education manifests the greatest threat to private colleges, and those institutions unable to offer an educational experience of great value to society will be forced out of existence in the coming years. Private colleges, which predictably will set tuition, fees, room, and board in excess of $4,000 per annum by the mid 1970s, must offer an academic program recognized for its excellence and relevance by parents and applicants alike. The small liberal arts college with its limited resources and research abilities must offer a stimulating, intimate academic environment to meet the competition of larger tax supported institutions for faculty and students alike. Liberal arts colleges must maintain an exciting intellectual climate not removed from society, but very much a part of the national culture. To provide the advantages of a larger academic community, yet retain the intimacy of a residential environment, many colleges take advantage of sharing resources. Indeed, some institutions anticipating such benefits relinquish some autonomy to form a federation.

The University’s isolation greatly influenced the decision of the Committee that expansion would enhance the overall education program by adding depth and breadth to course and extracurricular offerings. As C. Robert Pace of UCLA emphasized in an interview with two members of the Committee, an institution like Colgate, located at an inconvenient distance from an urban center of culture, must create its own artistic and intellectual environment. Such colleges can accomplish this only if the members of the community bring divergent and creative talents to the campus. Faculty members testified, and reports from other sources verified, the difficulty confronting the smaller liberal arts college in recruiting faculty members of high quality. Scholars and teachers need the nourishment of intellectual and professional conversation. They, as much as students, derive inspiration from probing and enlightened colleagues and interested and committed students. Realistically, with present admission procedures, the chances of creating such a stimulating environment are enhanced with greater numbers of students and faculty.

The analyses of Beardsly Ruml, Donald H. Morrison, Earl McGrath, and Lewis B. Mayhew impressed the Committee with the effective device of conserving resources through efficient use of classroom facilities and faculty (references in bibliography) In an unisexual institution certain departments draw a greater registration because of the natural interest variance between he two sexes. In the major divisions of a liberal education – natural science, social science, and the humanities -a great variety of courses must be offered to give breadth to the curriculum.

In the case of an all-male school, fine arts, languages, and education programs suffer for lack of upper division students. Instructors in these areas devote their time and energy to elementary or general education programs which, despite their essential nature, do not necessarily tax their special training while scheduling and instructing a mere handful of students in advanced courses, thus inefficiently capitalizing their special talents.

The studies by Rumal, Morrison, McGrath, and Mayhew stress the importance of expansion to fully utilize departmental staff which statistically do not draw majors in great proportion,  particularly among men, yet constitute an integral part of a general education. At Colgate, members of the Romance Languages and Education Departments appeared before the Committee to plead the case for increased enrollment, particularly through the addition of women students, as an essential condition to the success of their programs. Other departments, which would benefit from a larger number of concentrators and increased faculty would be music and fine arts.

Preliminary studies indicate that more efficient and better use could be made of present staff and facilities if the College enrollment expanded from 1,300 to 2,000 in the near future. That Colgate could attract even greater efficiency and quality with that addition being women is strongly enforced.

Encouraging enrollment and the increased press for higher education persuaded the Committee that Colgate’s student population will continue to increase in the years ahead. The Committee is apprehensive that such gradual expansion will occur without proper scheduling, taxing the present facilities and possibly weakening the overall educational program. Further, an unstructured increase in student population might not rectify certain inadequacies of the present environment, homogeneity and absence of an intellectual atmosphere, which occupy the thoughts of so many in the Colgate community.

The Committee’s acceptance of increased enrollment was reinforced by statements offered by Raymond Krehel, Treasures of the University. He envisions a student population of about 2,400 in the not too distant future. Income from the increased enrollment along with a more efficient use of staff and facilities, he maintained, would place Colgate in a more advantageous economic situation in comparison to other liberal arts colleges with whom Colgate must vie for faculty and students. Mr. Krehel cautioned that the College should undertake increased enrollment slowly to prevent dilution of the present academic program. The Committee heartily concurs with this position.

Members of the Committee agreed that the present intimacy of the campus should be retained by expanding faculty and staff and by hosting new students in comfortable residences similar to the Cutten and Bryant complexes. They recognized that an enrollment of 2,400 in the near future does not place Colgate in the category of large institutions. The enrollments of Dartmouth and 3,500, Princeton at 4,500, Brown at 4,600, and Smith at 2,400 have detracted neither from the prestige of these liberal arts colleges nor affected adversely the community atmosphere promoted by their overall educational program.

Financial Considerations

The Committee analyzed present financial resources and the required monies necessary to expand enrollment to about 2,400 students. (See Appendices One and Two) The present classroom space would prove nearly adequate to meet the demands of an institution of that particular size. A residence complex to house and feed the increase is of chief concern. Since fraternities cannot accommodate any more students than they presently do, student population beyond 1,800 must be housed in University structures. Estimates derived from present cost figures indicate that small living units which could house 600 students in accommodations similar to that of Cutten and Bryant Halls would cost about $10,00 per student for a total of $6 million. The Committee realized that such funds are available at low interest and prolonged loan periods from federal or state housing agencies. Thus, the Committee members did not believe this amount would place an undue burden upon the resources of the College.

The Committee considered the possibility that new dormitory, particularly if it were established as a coordinate college, might attract a donor or donors. Although Noel Hudson, Director of Development, was not optimistic on this account, he thought that a new college might draw financial support from philanthropy. Two members of the Committee learned from officers at the Claremont colleges and that University of the Pacific, that these institutions were able to raise large amounts of money to establish affiliated colleges where they had been unable to do so for the originating schools. These men expressed optimism for the proposal of drawing substantial support for a new, innovative structure which would perpetuate the generosity of a donor.

The Committee realizes that expanded enrollment would necessitate an increase in faculty and staff as well. They did not accept completely the argument of Beardsly Ruml that a 20 to 1 ratio could maximize efficiency and excellence, but felt that the present ratio could be increased without lowering academic achievement (reference in bibliography). To house new staff, an office and classroom building at an estimated cost of $1.25 million would be necessary. Colgate’s present need for office space is such that this building might become essential in the near future anyway. Other facilities required for an expansion would include the already proposed addition to the Creative Arts Center, a wing on the Huntington Gymnasium, and a new swimming pool. The Committee learned from Mr. Krehel that these last items are projected for future construction whether or not the College expands beyond 2,000. In order to give an honest appraisal of expenditures for an increment increase in enrollment to 2,400, the estimated cost figures for the addition to the Creative Arts Center and new physical education facilities are included in the proposed budget for establishing a coordinate college. If increased student population involved women students, some renovation of present facilities would be necessitated to provide proper restroom facilities. Thus, an item of some $25,000 was added to the budget for expansion if the increase were a coordinate college.

The estimated annual expenditures incurred by increasing the present enrollment by 600 as outlined by Mr. Krehel are presented in Appendix two. Estimated income from tuition would be $1,200,00 minus $200,000 financial aid, leaving a remainder of $1,000,000. Total direct costs amount to $693,000. The excess earnings over expenditures equals $307,000. If, however, the dormitory facilities must be financed through a government program, the estimated shortage would equal $13,000.

Expansion of the College to 2,400 would necessitate a capital outlay of approximately $10 million. The Committee suggests that the $6 million for a residence, however, should be considered a separate item. This reduces the amount required to some $4 million which though seemingly large, compares favorably to expansion programs in colleges of similar size and, indeed, with the future plans of Colgate as reported by the Treasurer, Mr. Krehel. The Committee did not anticipate that raising $4 million was a task too difficult for the institution since the benefits from a larger academic community would greatly enhance the prestige and the academic program of the University.

Expansion With The Greatest Benefit

The Committee having accepted the idea of expansion as essential to the continued excellence of the institution next considered the type of growth which would maximize the benefits to present program. In this day they concurred that the inclusion of women added many facets to the present academic program and the total environment of the College which could not be ignored.

Several faculty members argued that difficulties arising from social problems on the campus did not constitute the fundamental reason for coeducation, but that an education shared with women is essential for the understanding of what it means to be a human being. The Committee listened to many who maintained that the absence of the feminine viewpoint in the classroom in the academic environment tends to make young men regard women simply as companions for “entertainment only” and not as intelligent begins worthy of relationships other than the physical. Exclusion of women from the academic environment deprives young men of the opportunity to share with young women a learning situation which ideally molds values and a sense of responsibility.

The majority of teachers with whom the Committee members conferred strongly endorsed the inclusion of women in the classroom because of the uniqueness they would bring in their approach to the disciplines. Such people recognize the differences in the attitudes and thinking processes of the feminine sex and desire to incorporate this difference into classroom activities and discussions. Regarding the intellectual ability of women, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that they are as accomplished as men, and in most liberal arts colleges their qualifications surpass their male counterparts. They are conscientious workers, more committed to a liberal education, less susceptible to the pressure for vocationalism and more intellectually mature than males of equal age.

In talking to several student learned that they generally regard Colgate’s intellectual atmosphere somewhat lacking in vitality. They linked this apathy to the homogeneity of attending students and to the environmental consequences provoked by the absence of women. Young people seek more normal and frequent relations with those of the opposite sex. They hold values and interests quite different from college generations of the past. The Committee evaluated attitudes in this area keeping in mind that the educational program offered by a liberal arts college must be tailored to the interests and needs of contemporary students and those to come in the future and not a view of higher education more compatible to a bygone era.

Colgate men spend much of their time away from campus in what is termed the “Wednesday night flight.” Weekend absences leave too little time in which to complete academic assignments; thus, students jealously devote their time on campus to study and shun extracurricular activities, lectures, and artistic performances. Evidence to substantiate this apathetic behavior ensues from a noticeable lack of students who attend the Concert Series and other cultural and intellectual activities presented on campus. The area of student activities has suffered in recent years from an absence of interest in co curricular events and organizations which bring diversity and interest to the campus. Those students who remain on the campus during off weekends find little opportunity for entertainment other than drinking.

The Committee does not doubt that bright girls, who would bring diverse interests to the campus, would be readily obtainable if the University attempts coeducation or a coordinate program. Women students in present coordinate colleges average higher standards on nearly all admissions requirements than their male counterparts. The Admissions Office informs us that Colgate’s prestige would draw highly qualified women from the beginning because places open to women in liberal arts colleges are limited compared to those available to men in the northeast. The demand for liberal education of a quality offered by Colgate is greatly in demand by women applicants.

Because of the complicated sociological and psychological aspects concerning behavior problems at Colgate, the Committee did not feel capable of analyzing in detail the improvement in this area which might result from the inclusion of women into the all-male environment. The generally accepted, however, that the problems of a normal society might be easier to control than those of an abnormal one. Certain obvious abuses would, they believe, diminish if women constituted a normal part of campus life. The most noted of these are the three party weekend during which disregard for the sensibilities of female guests and a predilection to treat them as part of the entertainment occur frequently. The Committee learned from both faculty and students that many Colgate men feel ill at ease in the presence of women and tend to hide behind and institutional image as “Colgate men” rather than relate to women on a personal basis. This follows from associating with women only in dating situations and not in the ordinary circumstances of college life. The Committee does not consider coeducation a panacea for all the ills of the social program at Colgate, but it does feel that it would improve the attitude of young men towards women and give them a deeper understanding of the nature of women.

The Committee wishes to stress that the advantages of mixed education described above would pertain to women as well as men. Women are in need of liberal education of the quality offered by Colgate as much as men. And certainly, the presence of men in their educational experience adds greatly to an understanding of their own humanity and its relationship to that of men. The demand by women for positions in private liberal arts colleges quality far exceed the openings available. With each passing year this adverse ration increases. By opening its academic environment to qualified women, Colgate would serve not only those who would benefit directly from an excellent liberal education with men but also the greater society by showing the responsibility which our nation accepts to educate its young people according to the individual capacities.

In establishing a coordinate college, the University is offered a unique opportunity to innovate in the area of women’s education. Although the greatest part of the women’s academic program would take place within the structure of the present University, Colgate would be remiss if provisions were not taken to capitalize on the residential nature of the coordinate college and provide unique seniars and programs dealing specifically with women’s role in society. In harmony with the basic tenets argue in this report, the Committee recommends that these offerings be open to men as well.

Attitude Toward Coeducation

The Committee reviewed surveys and interviews conducted by others within the University which indicated the attitudes of faculty students, and alumni toward admission of undergraduate women to the College. The purpose of this action was not to compile an impressive array of statistics but to ascertain if there existed a large body from any of these groups which disapproved of the inclusion of women undergraduates in the future plans of the College. A faculty poll taken several years ago showed that 85% desired coeducation. Not one faculty member appeared before the Committee to present opposition to the admission of women undergraduates although that opportunity was afforded on various occasions during this past year.

James F. Dickinson, Vice-President of Alumni Affairs, commented to the Committee that among the alumni there was not a large group vociferously opposing any step in that direction. He cautioned however, that the alumni would want to know why the University contemplated this step when in the past its programs had been beneficial and most successful. Incomplete polls suggest that alumni who graduated before World War II generally oppose coeducation; those leaving Colgate after World War II to 1955 split more evenly. From 1955 on, alumni evidence considerable interest in coeducation. Mr. Dickinson felt that if we were to decided in favor of some form of coeducation, a most important task would be to keep the alumni informed of the reasons for our action.

The Committee deemed it important to know the present attitudes of students toward coeducation. A group of student leaders informed the Committee that interest in some form of coeducation increased with each new class and that a coordinate college received greater support than full integration of the present University structure. The freshmen class president estimated that 80% of his colleagues endorsed the admission of women to the Colgate environment. These leaders also linked dissatisfaction on the part of their peers with Colgate to the absence of women in the collegiate environment. These opinions received corroboration from the research efforts of a graduate resident adviser during this past year (See Appendix Three).  His opinion survey representing all classes and living units indicated that about 57% of those polled desired complete coeducation and that 91% favored the establishment of a coordinate college in the Hamilton area. Further, his investigation revealed that of those who expressed negative opinions toward the University 80% desired coeducation and 100% favored a coordinate college.

The introduction of women to the campus would have only minimal effect on prospective students. From admissions officers and a questionnaire distributed to the Class of ’70, the Committee learned that applicants select Colgate because of the institution’s academic reputation and the quality of its faculty, not because of its all-male enrollment. Young men applying to Colgate include coeducational institutions as well as other men’s colleges as alternates. The Committee members concluded that the uniqueness of Colgate as a men’s school was not an important factor in attracting qualified students.

If Colgate desires to become truly national in the composition of its student body, the admission of women to the academic community would enhance its appeal in parts of the United States outside the northeast. Separate education is rare in the Midwestern and western states except in parochial institutions; further, secondary education in these areas is primarily coeducational. The Committee recognizes that this national appeal will become increasingly important as the State University of New York develops.

Coordinate Education Preferred

The Committee generally agreed with those arguments which supported preference for a coordinate college rather than a coeducational institution. In this they were influenced by institutions which retain residential intimacy while expanding enrollment and broadening the academic program through a system of cluster colleges. The Committee accepts the supposition that Colgate’s congenial environment will change least, while building a more intellectual atmosphere, if additional undergraduates reside in a coordinate college with separate facilities and administration. Such programs have experienced much success at Michigan State University, the University of California at Santa Cruz, Wayne State University, Claremont, the University of the Pacific, and several others. The attachment of semi-autonomous colleges to an established institutions to increased numbers which would militate against an expressed desire to maintain a small campus atmosphere with close ties between all members of the academic community.

The establishment of a coordinate college for women would foster a situation in which innovation could easily develop. The graduate and professional schools have less influence over the curricula of women’s schools because  the majority of women students do not anticipate the study of law, medicine, or academic disciplines at the graduate level. Further, curricular innovation can evolve more easily in a new institution than in one where pattern and traditions of education are ingrained because of past experience.

The Committee generally contends that the establishment of a coordinate college will cost no more than the introduction of coeducation to the present campus. The same number of teachers and administrative personnel would be required to handle the affairs of women students whether or not they were situated in a University dormitory or in a coordinate college adjacent to the campus. For a number of resource persons, the Committee became aware of the desirable effects of providing women students a place part from the sexual competition of the coeducational campus. A coordinate college would allow women to conduct their own extracurricular activities without competing with men students for position and office, thus providing the opportunity for women to develop leadership abilities that might not occur in competition with men. Finally, the Committee realized that the alumni and students of the University would more readily accept a coordinate situation than straight coeducation.

The structure of a coordinate college envisioned by the Committee would place the academic program and faculty in the existing University. All classes would be missed and the degree requirements would be those of Colgate. Administrative responsibility for the coordinate college would reside in an administrative officers who would report through the Provost to the President of the University. The final structure of a coordinate women’s college, if adopted, should come under the purview of a special committee constituted for that purpose. The extracurricular life of the women’s college would be integrated somewhat with that of the University but would still offer ample opportunity for the girls to express their own ideas and interests.


The Committee believes that the expansion of the College is not only inevitable but highly desirable and should create an avenue by which the present rural, isolated campus can evolved into a more intellectually exciting and appealing environment for both faculty and students. The members recognize the excellence of the University’s present program given its isolation, the all-male enrollment, and a student ability level in the SAT 600s. The concur with one professor, however, who stated that the only way in which the College can proceed or advance further in its academics mission is to introduce women with their unique intellectual insight and cultural excitement. The Committee acknowledges Colgate’s recent achievements but cautions that the institution is now situated on a plateau in which the simple increase in facilities and academic programs will not greatly enhance the present educational program. The Committee sensed that the challenge provided by a coordinate college would propel Colgate into a new era –one demanding innovation to meet the needs of an ever changing society. It is the Committee’s hope that young men will be attracted to Colgate because of the excellent liberal arts education they can derive from the faculty and curriculum and not because of an all-male environment. In this regard, the Committee did not feel that in accepting women the University was altering its basic mission –liberal education in a residential environment for capable students. The Committee endorses a program and method of teaching, not an environment dedicated to instructing men.

The Committee holds no fears that the introduction of women will prove detrimental to the prestige of financial structure of the College. Indeed, it appears that such a step will enhance both of these qualities. The admission of women in a coordinate college, the Committee concluded, would produce a small, liberal arts college of high quality and intellectual vitality which would be a viable institution for many decades to come.

Respectfully submitted,

John S. Morris, Chairman
Warren M. Anderson, Trustee Representative
William F. Griffith, Administrative Representatives
Ralph A. Jones, Alumni Representative
Robert V. Smith, Faculty Representative
Charles M. Stanton, Secretary, Research Assistant
September 1967

Appendix One

Capital Expenditures for Additional 600 Students

   Educational Structures

Office and Classroom Buildings:
   70’x 103′, three floors and basement $725,000
   Sitework    30,000
   Utilities      5,000
   Miscellaneous    55,000
   Architect & Consultant    25,000
   Add 7% per year for inflation for five yars $294,000
   Faculty offices (35)    42,000
   Secretarial offices (6)      7,200
   Lounge      6,000
   Lecture Halls (2)     20,000
   Seminar Rooms (4)     18,000
TOTAL    $1,227,200
Addition to the Creative Arts Center               1,400,000
Gymnasium Facilities -including a new pool, even if coeds are not permitted               1,250,000
Additional Facilites in present structures                    25,000
TOTAL    $3,902,200

   Dormitory Facilities (600 students)

Includes office space and dining rooms $10,000 per student -from state or Federal Housing Authority or philanthropy $6,000,000

Appendix Two

Preliminary Costs Figures for Additional 600 students

Estimated Income From Tuition
      600 @ $2,000 $1,200,000

Less Scholarship Assistance to:

      200 @ $1,000 each   -200,000
           NET TUITION INCOME $1,000,000
  Education & General:
     Faculty Salaries (35 @ $12,000) 420,000
     Benefits (17% of $420,000) 71,400
     Staff Salaries (6 @ $12,000) 72,000
     Benefits (17% of $72,000) 12,250
     Operation of one additional office and classroom building 25,000
     Other operation costs 24,850
   Auxiliary Operations:
      Cutten & Bryant Complex operating costs (including interest and principal repayment on bond issue) exceed income by $45,000. Facilities for 600 students would increase cost by 50% to a total of $67,500
      Total Direct Costs of providing for 600 additional students $693,000
            Income exceed listed expense by $307,000
      Annual Cost of financing $6,000,000 at 3 1/3% over 30 year period  325,000
             Shortage $ 18,000

Note: It should be understood that the costs listed above represent estimates of only some of the direct costs related to the 600 student increase. There are other direct and indirect costs which also must be considered.

Appendix Three

Findings of Student Opinion on Coeducation by Edward Ward, G.R.A.

Question: Would you favor Colgate becoming a coeducational University?

Yes No Undecided
Fraternity Members 56.4% 33.5% 10.0%
Non-affiliated Upperclassmen 70.3% 24.0% 3.7%
Those who express negative opinions of the University 79.7% 15.9% 4.3%
Those who express positive opinions of the University 34.4% 50.4% 14.4%
Overall 57.3% 31.7% 10.3%

Question: Would you like to see a Women’s College founded in the Hamilton area?

Yes No Undecided
Those who expressed negative opinions of the University 100% 0% 0%
Those who expressed positive opinions of the University 84.8% 11.2% 4.0%
Overall 91.4% 7.0% 1.5%


Consultants to the Committee on Coeducation

Mark Barlow, Vice President for Student Affairs, Cornell University
Joseph Cole, Dean of Students, University of Rochester
Richard Couper, Business Manager & Treasurer, Hamilton College
Elizabeth Daniels, Faculty Dean, Vassar College
Claude Dierolf, Dean of Students, Muhlenberg College
George Gibbs, Director of Development, Muhlenberg College
Burce Haywood, Dean of Faculty, Kenyon College
Lewis B. Mayhew, Professor of Higher Education, Stanford University
Margaret Habein Merry, President, Wheelock College
Dale Moore, President, Cedar Crest College
John Phillips, Director of Alumni Relations, Muhlenberg College
Rosemary Pierrel, Dean, Pembroke College
Patricia R. Plante, Academic Dean, Thomas More College
Robert O. Schultz, Dean of the College, Brown University
Winton Tolles, Dean, Hamilton College

Faculty and Staff at Colgate University Interviews by the Committee on Coeducation

John C. Cochran, Chemistry Department
James F. Dickinson, Vice President for Alumni Affairs, Development and Public Relations
Robert Freedman, Economics Department
M. Holmes Hartschorne, Philosophy & Religion Department
Robert L. Hathaway, Romance Languages
W. Noel Hudson, Director of Development
Karl F. Koenig, German Department
Raymond Kremel, Treasurer and Business Manager
James C. Nicholls, Romance Languages Department
Mark S. Randall, Physical Education Department
Raymond O. Rockwood, History Department
Robert B. Shirley, Dean of Admissions
Huntington Terrell, Philosophy & Religion Department

Students at Colgate University Interviewed by the Committee on Coeducation

Richard Weidman, Student Body President
Mike Carlebach, Student Senator
John Zarecki, Chairman, Student Committee on Coeducation
Mike Smith, President of the Freshmen Class