Coeducation Goes to a Vote (Fall 1972)

"Co-Education" [Excerpt] , Jasper Journal, October 17, 1972.

Many students eagerly awaited the report that had been mandated by the Senate. It was compiled over the summer by the Senate Committee to Study Coeducation and the College's accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

The report said it was investigating coeducation because the reasons to exclude women from enrollment "do not have the same validity they enjoyed in the past," citing the changes made in Vatican II that modified Catholic attitudes towards coeducation, and the fact that a "significant number" of single-sex educational institutions were at least reexamining whether they should stay that way. 

Manhattanite, 1973.

The committee felt that the arguments in favor of going coeducational were:

• It would the let the College "participate positively in the current social movement to provide equal opportunities to women in all areas."
• An education in a coeducational institution "can provide students with experience that closely parallels the total human experience" taking into account that in their post-graduate world they would be working in environments with men and women.
• "The presence of women can provide a stimulus to men to perform better academically." 
• "It is hoped that the presence of women in the activities of the College can contribute toward more refined and considerate conduct...and general improvement."
• A coeducational institution allowed students "to develop a balanced understanding of relationships between the sexes."

Manhattanite, 1973.

The committee saw reasons to oppose coeducation as being:

• Manhattan College had only ever been for men, so they wondered if it was "sufficiently prepared to understand" any "specific challenges or problems in educating women."
• If the College admitted women, it would have issues it had not had in the past, related to "student life" and "sexual ethics", so did it need to add these problems?
• If coeducation was solely about a "desire to introduce female influence on campus", then the existing program with Mount St. Vincent meant that desire had "lesser validity."

Weighing those, the committee decided coeducation should be intensified.

The report discussed the costs for facilities changes or program expansions that would be needed for coeducation whether it be: without any Mount St. Vincent cooperative program, alongside the Mount St. Vincent cooperative program, or without any women enrolled in Manhattan and only through an expansion of the cooperative program.

Additionally the report tried to forecast the admissions changes to be expected and the added revenue that would result.

"Sub-Comm Passes Co-Education" [Cartoon only], Quadrangle, October 26, 1972.

The 96-page report caused the College Senate to delay its meeting to give all its members time to fully read it.  Overall, the conclusions of the report and the resolution the committee submitted in it was that the most advantageous outcome would be to continue the Mount St. Vincent co-operative program while opening Manhattan College's enrollment to women as well. 

"Around Campus, c. 1973 #3", Manhattan College Archives.

On November 8. 1972, the Senate met to discuss the Committee on Coeducation's report and conclusions, and to vote on the resolution it had come up with. Brother Stephen Sullivan who had been on the committee read a prepared statement saying that while he recognized that, while for many at the College the decision to go coeducational was a financial one, that was not the primary reason the committee weighed in their discussion on adopting this policy, and to make economics the primary reason "would be treating women disdainfully and using them for convenience." The resolution from the committee was voted on to begin admitting women into the College in the Fall of 1973 and it passed 45-2. One of the 'no' votes had previously wrote in the Quadrangle that he hadn't been in favor of full coeducation due to the College concentrating in Business and Engineering, "areas in which enrollment of women is below average."