[address redacted]
ROCKPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01966

December 11th 1983.

Dear Dr. Wilson:

I was somewhat disturbed to read in a
recent copy of the News-Gazette that the
matter of Washington and Lee becoming co-ed
was once again in question. During corres-
pondence with Bill Washburn I mentioned my
reactions, and he has urged me to let you
know my point of view.

I still believe the president of Sweet
Briar was correct when, during a previous
flurry over the matter, she said firmly
that there remains a definite place for the
single-sex college in this country. There
is something about such an institution which
creates an atmosphere quite superior to that
in places where boys and girls attend college
together.

I happened to spend some time on the
Princeton campus the first year they were
co-ed, and I've been back there at intervals
since that time. I could not escape the im-
pression that the girls were there in good
part to hitch on to some male, possibly for
that reason alone. My hosts had luncheon
meetings, so I went to eat in the principal
spot just off carpus where seemingly most of
the co-eds gathered for the noontimne repast.

[pb]

The atmosphere was too like that of a late
night hangout, with the girls literally all
over the boys.

Friends close to things at Dartmouth
tell me the place has gone way down since it
turned co-ed. I know the college where I
taught for many years has dropped to nothing
since it became co-ed - not in numbers, of
course, but in general atmosphere. The fact
that all of my former colleagues, except one,
have departed for other locations may or may
not be one of the results.

When I was in Lexington for one of those
special Fall conferences a few years ago, I
asked everybody in sight their opinions. I
found only one person - Betty Munger at the
Book Store, who was indeed rabid on the
subject, though she did say two Faculty men
were in favor, also. I was impressed by the
unanimity of the students who were with us
throughout the conference. All seemed to
agree with the view of one, Sandy Stradtman,
who said "We are within 50 miles of five girls'
colleges and can get dates any time we went.
We don't need girls around all the time."

As a matter of fact, I have taught a
number of classes including women of varied
ages, and I know without doubt that the level
of work is not the same. Even the large
course in which I had members of 17 orders
of nuns, plus priests, brothers, and assorted
lay people was simply not up to standard. I
have nothing against mixed groups in grad.
work - in fact I suspect the two-sex classes

[pb]

[address redacted]
ROCKPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01966


at that level are better for the varying
points of view.

I noted that there was a question as
to whether W&L might lose in numbers of
students unless the change to co-ed was
made. From the published reports, it does
not appear that the college has suffered in
number of applications for admission. And
judging from the evident good quality of
the students I saw and talked with during
attendance at the last two May reunions,
there is no loss of quality to this point.

I know I belong to a past generation,
and I recognize that turning co-ed is the
'thing' at the present time. Yet I truly
do not want to see W&L 'fall in line' just
to keep up with the current trend. We have
something most remarkably unique at W&L, and
I do hope we do not take a chance on losing
that fine thing.

With all good wishes,

Sincerely,

[William D. Hoyt]

William D. Hoyt
B.A.'32, MA.'33

[(over)]
Dr. William D. Hoyt
[address redacted]
Rockport, Mass. 01966

[pb]

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

January 3, 1984



Mr. William D. Hoyt
[address redacted]
Rockport, Massachusetts 01966

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

Thank you very much indeed for writing about the coeducation
question. The matter has arisen here yet again, as well you know,
probably in no small part because I am just now finishing my first year
and began, in that initial period, a whole series of inquiries. The health
of our admissions picture, now and in the years to come, was only one
focal point, but an important one, in our studies.

We have lost 114 points in average board scores since 1965, twenty
of those in the past year. A more troubling sign is the decline in "yield,"
that is, the decline we have experienced in the number of accepted applicants
who finally matriculate. This past fall we had to accept 890 students to
enroll 360. This is a very low percentage, as well you know, and we fear
we lost more than our share of the best of that group.

Of course we try to find out as much as we can about why these
young men decline our invitation and where they go and why they have
chosen as they have. Most frequently they tell us they have chosen a
coeducational college of similar quality, Duke or Vanderbilt, or Davidson
or Sewanee or UVA or William & Mary (to name only our regional rivals).
Their school counselors tell us the same thing and tell us, too, that we
lose many potential applicants in the first place who will not even consider,
as a viable option, an all-male college. They believe it to be an artificial
environment and cannot imagine any pedagogical or social advantage. It
doesn't help much to tell them that women's colleges abound in the valley,
within 50 miles in any given direction.

These are the difficulties we are now required to struggle with and
I fear they will only deepen as the high school population drops off sharply
in the years ahead. Our problem is to judge, as best we can, what will
help us to become stronger in these years facing us. Some honestly believe
that our drawing power will be increased by remaining all-male because
there will be almost no others like us in this respect. Others fear this
will merely make us appear to be a curious eccentricity, clinging to a form
that no one, any longer, recognizes as valid.

It is a perplexing problem to sort through. If only we could see
the future clearly! At any rate, please know that we are not taking the
matter up as part of a trend. The trend is long since past us. It is,

[pb]

Mr. William D. Hoyt
January 3, 1984
Page 2



rather, a matter of determining how to keep Washington and Lee selective
in the face of a quite dramatic decline in the number of high school
graduates in the decade ahead--and in ways which will preserve all the
essential features of our academic life here. Is our all-male character an
essential feature? Some would say it is beyond argument. Others (including
alumni now on the faculty) claim that our gender is a small and inconsequential
part of what is most important about the experience here.

I have heard from 81 members of the faculty thus far. Four of that
number argue against coeducation. Five are cautiously neutral. Seventy-
two strongly urge the Board to begin at once the process of altering our
undergraduate admissions policy. Nine of ten alumni faculty are strongly
for the admission of young women. It is enough to give one serious pause,
especially because the alumni faculty know the place so well and love it
so deeply.

If you have further thoughts to add to your earlier letter, I hope
you will not hesitate to write again. I know the Board will welcome your
views.

Most sincerely,



John D. Wilson
President

JDW:mah