{"id":4769,"date":"2016-01-28T14:57:40","date_gmt":"2016-01-28T14:57:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/archives.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/?p=4769"},"modified":"2023-11-28T19:59:35","modified_gmt":"2023-11-28T19:59:35","slug":"srsjosephporto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/2016\/01\/28\/srsjosephporto\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cAn Intimate Revolution in Campus Life\u201d?: Gender Roles and their Impact on Dorm Coedification"},"content":{"rendered":"

This paper is part of the\u00a0Student Researcher Series<\/strong>\u00a0which showcases research students have conducted using resources in the Student Life and Culture Archives. If you’re a student who is interested in sharing your research on our blog, please contact us<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Joseph Porto<\/strong> is a senior in history and anthropology at the University of Illinois. This paper was written for History 498:Research and Writing Seminar taught by Professor Leslie Reagan. Joseph presented his research at the Ethnography of the University Initiative Conference in December 2015.<\/em><\/p>\n

At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (UIUC, U of I) the coedification of the residence halls was administered from the ground up. Students on campus lobbied for new policies and crafted the \u201cProposed Undergraduate Residence Hall Flexible Living – Master Plan\u201d (henceforth referred to as the Master Plan for convenience) in the summer of 1970, which, after careful revisions from the chancellor, university president, and board of trustees, set the guidelines for the university\u2019s first genuinely coed dorms. The process was enacted on a dorm-by-dorm basis, representing the \u201cFlexible\u201d aspect of the program. Since each dorm created its own unique coedification plan, some interesting patterns arose between the male and female houses which serve to highlight larger gender stereotypes and differences typically perceived by early-year undergraduate students in the late sixties and early seventies.<\/p>\n

Review of Previous Research<\/strong><\/p>\n

I had an extremely difficult time finding historical works that focused on college students in residence halls and the coedification process that occurred in the sixties holistically. There was one article that seemed to be a complete \u201cHistory of Coedification,\u201d Brian J. Willoughby\u2019s \u201cThe Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses.\u201d Alas, it was not available within the University\u2019s databases or in any libraries that I could request it from (if I wasn\u2019t a poor undergrad I would have paid the $30 to read it). I found numerous articles and archival correspondence between UIUC and other BIG10 universities about the coedification of specific universities, which I used to gauge how progressive U of I was in comparison to the rest of the nation.[1,2,3,4]<\/a> Generally, UIUC\u2019s coedification policy was implemented around the same time as other public colleges in the area.<\/p>\n

I did find other works that discussed coeducation in general, mainly Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson\u2019s Going Coed: Women\u2019s Experiences in Formerly Men\u2019s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000.<\/em>[5]<\/a> This book provided some useful insight on general attitudes around coeducation in the sixties, but little information or direct quotes I could use about the coedification process. Elizabeth Pleck\u2019s book also helped me understand general attitudes of the time around coedification\/coeducation.[6]<\/a> I also found a plethora of contemporary articles that examined problems that arise in coed vs. single-sex halls.[7,8,9,10]<\/a> For example, women are more likely to develop eating disorders in coed halls (Berg), males living single-sex dorms have higher GPAs when compared to coed dorms but females living in single-sex dorms do not (Yongyi, et. al.), and living in single-sex dorms does not have any effect on freshman female students\u2019 GPAs, attitudes toward the university, or conduct (Schoemer and McConnell).<\/p>\n

Before Coedification: 1930-1968<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before men and women began to live together at U of I, most students lived in sororities or fraternities and in off-campus certified housing. According to a housing report of female students from 1930, 50% lived in sororities, 26% lived in \u201ctwin city homes for student roomers\u201d (these were local families who hosted students in their homes), 16% lived in one of the three women\u2019s residence halls, and the rest lived in co-ops or houses managed by church boards.[11]<\/a> According to another report from 1940, most female students still lived in \u201cstudent roomer\u201d homes, with their parents, or in sororities.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

For the few female students who did live in the residence halls during this time, rules were strict. Dorm officials locked the doors at 10:30pm every weeknight and at 1am on Fridays and Saturdays; quiet hours began at 7:30pm every night except on Fridays and Saturdays. Men weren\u2019t allowed inside the women\u2019s halls at all and vice-versa, and even phone calls from men were restricted to the hours after 4pm on all days except Saturday and Sunday.[13]<\/a> If male and female students wanted to meet each other, they had to do so in a coffee shop or in the library, after each person had a chance to make themselves \u201cpresentable\u201d. The restrictive rules in the women\u2019s halls gradually became more relaxed between 1940 and 1960, as \u201cself-regulated women\u2019s hours\u201d were established, female students were given keys to access the dorms after they were locked, and phone call bans were lifted.[14]<\/a> Unmarried men and women were still not permitted to live together or visit each other\u2019s university-approved residences until the late sixties, however, with the Pennsylvania Avenue Residence Hall (PAR) being the only exception to this rule.<\/p>\n

\"Pennsylvania<\/a>
Pennsylvania Avenue Residence Hall (PAR)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

PAR was the very first coeducational dorm at U of I, constructed in 1962, in what the Daily Illini<\/em> called \u201cAn Experiment in Co-ed Living.\u201d[15]<\/a> This experiment was conducted relatively early compared to the rest of the country\u2014mass coedification nationwide (and at UIUC) didn\u2019t occur until the late sixties and early seventies, however, PAR wasn\u2019t exactly revolutionary. The building\u2019s four halls were completely segregated, with women living in the northern half and men living in the southern half. The two groups only ever interacted in common lounge and cafeteria areas, where hall authorities kept a close eye on them. For the students living in PAR and their parents back at home, there wasn\u2019t much to complain about with the new arrangement because not much had changed; males and females were still only interacting in public spaces. Thus, the dorm operated smoothly until pressure for further integration shook things up later in the decade.<\/p>\n

Student Groups and Ground-Up Change<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Women's<\/a>
Women’s Independent Student Association<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A student-powered rhetoric began to develop on campus in the mid-sixties \u2013 in fashion with the revolutionary youth culture of the time \u2013 that challenged the university\u2019s restrictive policies. Students formed new coalitions and criticized the administration\u2019s practices of in loco parentis<\/em>, or policy acting in place of the students\u2019 parents. In regards to the residence halls, students wanted desperately to implement optional coed living and visitation, and they took action to accomplish this. Higher-ranking members from segregated student groups like the Men\u2019s Residence Hall Association (MRHA) and the Women\u2019s Independent Student Association (WISA) began to join together and form new coed groups, like the Inter-Dormitory Communication Council (IDCC) and the South West Campus Federation (SWCF)\u2014the latter of the last two producing the Master Plan that enabled coedification on campus.<\/p>\n

University administration also had a hand in motivating the formation of coeducational student groups, mostly as a result of a policy proposed in the summer of 1969 by Arnold Strohkorb, then director of housing. The policy, if passed, would have raised rent for all students living in the residence halls by $100. During this summer, the SWCF and the IDCC were created in order to combat the rent increase and also hash out the logistics of coedification with a combined effort from both the male and female halls. However, the male members of these groups still held most of the power and controlled most of the group\u2019s decisions, for example, within the SWCF, members of the MRHA also participated and thus gained double representation at meetings between student and university housing associations. Female student leaders from the halls on Fourth Street and at Allen and Lincoln Avenue (LAR) were selected to represent female students in the SWCF, because a female version of a group like the MRHA didn\u2019t exist. The battle against the rent increase was lost in the negotiations that followed, however, the MRHA (the SWCF and IDCC were still too new to participate) did succeed in another one of their goals, getting Strohkorb to establish the Student Housing Advisory Committee (SHAC).[16]<\/a> SHAC was a group created as a subsidiary of the office of housing, comprised of male and female student leaders \u2013 resident advisors, hall presidents, members of hall student governments, etc. \u2013 who lobbied for student\u2019s interests from within the administration\u2019s infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Students\u2019 increased representation within the housing office led to further criticism and the eventual resignation of Arnold Strohkorb. During the 1969-70 school year, Strohkorb began to seek out students who had left the dorms before completing the 75-hour (5 semester) in-residence requirement, forcing students to break or pay their way out of apartment contracts. This ramping up of the persecution of students who left the halls early drew heavy condemnation even from administrators under his employ. Housing administrator Robert Gruelle, for example, called the persecution of students living in illegal housing a \u201ccrack down,\u201d and labelled the University\u2019s housing regulations as \u201cthe most archaic in the nation.\u201d[17]<\/a> Later that year, on Friday March 20th<\/sup> 1970, Strohkorb resigned from his position as director of housing after a tenure of only 2 years. His replacement, Sammy Rebecca, would prove to be much better at communicating with students and assisting them in implementing the policies they desired.<\/p>\n

Coeducational Visitation and National Attitudes on Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The Illini Wise Handbooks outlined rules regarding visitation and curfew<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Before full coedification was put into effect, the university wanted to test a coeducational visitation policy. Beginning in February of the spring semester in 1968, the university implemented an experimental coeducational visitation plan that would allow men and women to visit each other\u2019s residences from noon to one a.m. on Friday and Saturday and noon to midnight on all other days of the week. The plan also laid out rules for guests within the dorms, for instance: \u201cRooms shall be unlocked and available to access at all times when a guest is present in a host\u2019s room,\u201d and \u201cA procedure [must exist] for escorting guests to and from private areas of the living unit.\u201d[18]<\/a> The administration left these rules intentionally vague because the specifics were to be voted upon by the residents of each dorm, with a two-thirds majority required for approval. The university administration considered the experimental semester of the plan a success, and it was implemented permanently at the start of the 1969-70 school year.<\/p>\n

This implementation was not without controversy, however, as conservative members of the Board of Trustees forced a split decision on the vote for whether or not to continue the experiment after its trial year. The board president, Earl M. Hughes, was concerned with freshman women\u2019s safety and wanted a stipulation in the plan that limited their visitation hours; this limitation was impossible, though, because dorm rooms were not assigned by class. Other board members, like trustee Ralph Hahn, were concerned that if visitation did not pass that it would deteriorate student-staff relations and \u201cput the chancellor in an almost intolerable situation come September.\u201d[19]<\/a> The board was ultimately divided on the issue and decided not to vote, and a no-vote meant that the plan would move forward through the 1969-70 school year.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

The rules laid out for the visitation program took a fairly standard approach when compared with other colleges\u2019 policies from around the same time. Some had more relaxed rules, (Oberlin had unlimited visitation hours)[21]<\/a> and some were more restrictive (some schools still required that doors remain open if a guest of the opposite sex was present); still, universities had been rapidly becoming more coedified across the nation as a result of the social revolutions of the late sixties, which pressured them to establish coed dorms and more liberal visitation hours. Compared to the conservative visitation policies of the early sixties \u2013 many of which had been in place for as long as the institutions themselves \u2013 this was a rapid and radical change. Some of the most restrictive conservative policies during the early part of the decade were carried out by single-gender schools, like the all-female Barnard college in New York, as described by Elizabeth Pleck: \u201cDorm visitation hours for male guests were three hours on Sunday afternoons; with a visitor in the room, at least three of the couple\u2019s four feet had to be touching the floor at all times.\u201d[22]<\/a> Granted, most schools weren\u2019t as strict as Barnard, but the change from the segregation of sexes across the board to relatively sudden coedification was jarring for members of the generation who had gone to college prior to the sixties.<\/p>\n

Changes in visitation policy and increased coedification occurring at universities across the country especially irritated parents and alumni, and this was no different at UIUC. The previous generation had attended a school where the sexes lived on opposite ends of campus and weren\u2019t allowed to visit each other\u2019s residences, and they felt that the separation was beneficial to their academic studies. Parents feared that if their children lived in close proximity or were allowed to visit members of the opposite sex freely that they would undoubtedly lose focus on their school work; not to mention that parents viewed their daughters as being particularly vulnerable in coed living situations because men were a constant threat to their belongings and personal well-being.<\/p>\n

Robert G. Brown, Associate Dean of Student Programs and Services, expressed a fear for female students\u2019 safety in one of his memos on the new visitation system, in which he argued that a centralized registration system was essential for male visitors to the female halls. He justified this by stating: \u201cI felt that we would have great difficulty in rationalizing central registration for the men\u2019s halls as the male students and staff did not view women visiting men\u2019s residence halls as a big threat to security.\u201d[23]<\/a> In another instance of concern for female students\u2019 safety, a U of I alum voiced his concern about coeducational visitation and residence in a letter to university president David D. Henry. He stated that the university wasn\u2019t being fair to its female students by forcing them to live in coed dorms, and that because of this, \u201cOur daughters themselves are complaining that their privacy is denied them.\u201d[24]<\/a> This statement is in line with female students\u2019 opinions of coedification: according to a survey conducted by the Housing Division on Coedification and Visitation (they established a special division just to gauge student\u2019s perceptions of the new policies), 70% of female students responded yes to the question, \u201cWould you prefer to live in a hall segregated by sex?\u201d compared to 29% of men. Furthermore, 61% of women and only 18% of men responded yes to the question, \u201cDo you think, in principle, the University should provide a residential area (House\/Floor) in which NO visitation would be permitted?\u201d[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

As stated earlier, visitation policies were voted on by each individual residence, and as a result many dorms decided not to make use of the full range of hours offered to them. The dorms which limited their visitation hours the most, however, were the all-female ones. Of the fifty-one female units who reported, four chose not to have any coeducational visitation program, forty-four established visitation hours only during allotted times on the weekends, and only three allowed weekday visitation. Of the residences that chose to allow visitation, none of them were for a more than four hours a day, and they always ended at five p.m. (there was one uniquely lenient hall that allowed visitation from nine to twelve forty-five a.m. on Saturdays).[26]<\/a> The men\u2019s halls, on the other hand, unanimously voted in favor of the full range of visitation hours, from noon to two a.m. on Friday and Saturday and noon to midnight on all other days.<\/p>\n

This raises the obvious question, then: why did the female students want to have restricted visitation hours? Firstly, they were very clearly concerned about their safety, and legitimately so. Men had never been allowed to enter the women\u2019s halls before, and the students living there were understandably concerned with the threat to personal security and privacy that male strangers posed. The nature of sexuality and gender roles in the sixties, despite its apparent advancements, also motivated this fear. By 1968, the National Women\u2019s Organization (NWO) had been founded, the Civil Rights Act had been put into effect (which banned discrimination against women in employment), and pro-abortion sentiment had been growing preceding the Roe v. Wade<\/em> Supreme Court decision in 1973. By all historical accounts, gender roles were being radically redefined in the public sphere. The fight for equal civil rights for all races, ethnicities, and genders carried out by the \u201cbaby boomer\u201d generation had been active for at least a decade, which would lead one to think that women entering a public university in 1968 would be sensitive to these issues and desire greater freedoms for themselves as they became adults. What actually transpired, though, was that daughters internalized and retained the conservative definitions of gender roles instilled in them by their parents upon entering college.<\/p>\n

A survey conducted in 1976 by the University of Michigan asked its participants to rate themselves on a scale of one to seven, with a one indicating they completely agreed with the statement \u201cmen and women should have equal roles,\u201d and a seven indicating a complete agreement with the statement \u201cwomen\u2019s place is in the home.\u201d The responses were then collected and used to rank white and black males and females as either \u201cliberal,\u201d \u201cneutral,\u201d or \u201cconservative\u201d depending on what numbers they chose. The results showed that white females were 26.3% conservative and 51.5% liberal on this issue, the most conservative<\/em> and the least liberal<\/em> out of all of the groups surveyed. White males were the second least liberal group at 58.7%, and black males and females were the most liberal, holding identical percentages at 63.4%.[27]<\/a> There are a few different factors that played a part in why white females clung to values of traditional gender roles more than their male counterparts, even after the height of the sexual revolution. According to French and Nock, these views depended on three different factors: whether or not the female was a housewife or a working woman (working women were more liberal), educated or uneducated (educated women were more liberal), and a blue-collar or a white-collar worker (white-collar female workers were more liberal).[28]<\/a> Before the revolutions of the 60s, one could imagine, the general population held on to traditional gender role beliefs more strongly, and consequently among working, educated, and white-collar women who sent their children to college.<\/p>\n

Thus, it can safely be assumed that white women entering UIUC in 1968 (the vast majority of students were white at this time, although \u201cProject 500\u201d had tripled the amount of African American students that very year), whose parents were trained in more traditional beliefs when it came to gender roles, were inclined to side with their parent\u2019s views rather than the radical ideas that were vying to change the definitions of these roles at the time they enrolled. Prevailing gender stereotypes that the parents of young adults of the late sixties were raised to believe had promoted the ideas that women were more influenced by their emotions than logic, and that they were more interested in the frivolous and aesthetic aspects of life. As a result of their perceived emotional and materialistic nature, members of the generation preceding the Baby Boomers \u2013 the Silent Generation \u2013 largely believed that women were inherently intellectually inferior to men. What is most important in helping us understand the motives of our female UIUC students in the late sixties, however, is the fact that these ideas were endorsed by both men and women.[29]<\/a> These negative stereotypes of women were so prevalent, and so well-advocated by men that many women had internalized them and acted in accordance with them, or were at least discouraged from defying them.[30]<\/a><\/p>\n

Now, with the perspective of these new students\u2019 parents in mind (as well as the administration and alumni, who were also a part of the previous generation)[31]<\/a>, we can more fully understand why these female students unanimously voted for strict visitation policies: they were just as concerned about their safety from male students as their college administrators, parents, and alumni were. Who could blame them? They were understandably afraid that the male students would take advantage of them if they were allowed such unrestricted access to their residences. This is why the administration deliberated most about the central registration policy for the female dorms; one letter stated, \u201cIn addition, women\u2019s residence halls are encouraged [it was later clarified that this was not optional] to develop a central hall registration system to provide better security for residents and their possessions and to make it possible to close the hall at an earlier time during the evening hours.\u201d[32]<\/a> These restrictive policies, however, influenced by traditional gender roles and voted into practice by the residents themselves, would not last forever.<\/p>\n

The Master Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

The influence of the sexual revolution that was sweeping the country didn\u2019t take exception to the campus at Urbana Champaign, and its effects were felt directly through changes to university policy regarding gender. The SWCF, in association with multiple other student groups (MRHA, WISA, IDCC, SHAC), crafted the Master Plan during the first semester of the 1969 school year. The plan was comprehensive: it laid out the details of flexible coedification for each hall on campus, described orientation and social programs to help students adjust to the new living arrangements, estimated the costs of necessary renovations, established added security measures, examined the plan in relation to others in the Midwest, and defined new coed hall student government structures. The Master Plan was submitted to then Director of Housing Arnold Strohkorb on February 23rd<\/sup>, 1970.[33]<\/a> Strohkorb had little influence on the plan, however, as he resigned only a month after its submission. His successor, Sammy Rebecca, handled the evaluation and revision of the plan in cooperation with the SWCF and SHAC.<\/p>\n

After minor revisions \u2013 the Office of Student Housing\u2019s main concern was producing an accurate cost analysis \u2013 Rebecca sent the plan to Dean of Students Hugh Satterlee on July 20th<\/sup>, who approved and subsequently sent it to Chancellor Jack Peltason and President David Henry. After discussion, the Chancellor and the President agreed not to inform the Board of Trustees of the full cost and necessary tuition raises required to implement the plan: \u201cIn view of the Board\u2019s interest in all matters touching upon student affairs, however, you may wish to consider the extent of the detail regarding physical modification the Board wish to be concerned with in considering this plan.\u201d[34]<\/a> The plan was then sent to the Board of Trustees who formally accepted it at their meeting in January 1971, allowing it to be implemented at the beginning of the 1971 school year. The approval of the Master Plan even garnered coverage from the local Channel 3 News team, as anchor Don Wilcox reported in a two-part piece about the creation of the plan, the struggle to get it past the Board, and the students\u2019 refusal of in loco parentis<\/em> policies.[35]<\/a> The promise of increased competition with the apartment and off-campus housing markets, and the belief that students would stay in the dorms longer, ultimately convinced the Board to approve the plan. The only hang-up was establishing more stringent security measures that were not specified in the original plan, such as locked doors between male and female sections of the dorms, and locked stairwells to prevent non-students from entering buildings.<\/p>\n

According to the Master Plan, each dorm chose if and in what way it would be coedified. All of the previously female dorms voted to either to go coed by wing (PAR-style) or remain all female (most common). The male dorms voted to either have a split-floor living plan (most common), a floor-by-floor living plan, or remain all male (least common). Split floor meant that men and women lived on the same floor separated by a lounge area and locked doors; a floor by floor plan meant alternating floors of male and female rooms. The female students voted for more strict gender segregation mainly due to privacy concerns. Sammy Rebecca was quoted in 1975, saying, \u201cThe students resisted going coed. It got a lot of negative reaction from the women. They were afraid that if guys moved in they would lose their privacy. The girls who live there [ISR] are happy with it [the split-wing coedification layout].\u201d[36]<\/a> The trend of female halls remaining more segregated than the male halls would not last, however, as over time a majority of the all-female halls petitioned to coedify, some by wing and some by floor.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The coedification process at U of I and across the nation may not have been the \u201cIntimate Revolution in Campus Life\u201d claimed by the 1970 LIFE article that covered the process at Oberlin, but rather a more nuanced and gradual progression of gender integration. Differences perceived by the female and male students enforced a situation in which the men\u2019s dorms took no issue with integrating women, and the women\u2019s dorms most certainly took issue with integrating men. Female students weren\u2019t thought of as a threat to the male students\u2019 safety, and thus there was no reason for the male students to oppose coedification. The female students, on the other hand, carried legitimate concerns about privacy and safety, as well as more complicated anxieties about the disruption of traditional male-female interaction that was expected of them by their parents.<\/p>\n

Looking ahead to today,\u00a0the halls at Illinois\u00a0are\u00a0more diverse than\u00a0they were in the sixties. Incoming freshmen can choose to live in single-sex or coed living arrangements, and the residence halls\u00a0are considerably more varied in their organization of males and females. Students can live in split-floor halls in LAR, ISR, and many other (this is now the most common method of organization). Only one hall remains all male (Lundgren), and only Barton and Busey-Evans are all-female. Additionally, the north wing of the first floor in Allen Hall is gender-inclusive, and the new Wassaja hall (opening in fall 2016) will have two clusters of gender-inclusive rooms.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>[1] Letter, Robert C. Hughes, Associate Director of University Housing at Michigan to the Implementation Subcommitte, Coedification Committee, MRHA Office \u2013 Weston Hall. December 16 1969, box 1, \u201cCoedification, 1967-1974 #4\u201d folder, record series 37\/6\/5, Facilities and Services, Housing Division, Housing Coedification File, 1967-1984, University Archives.
\n<\/a>[2] Thomas, Ronald W. 1974. \u201cCoed Housing in One Fell Swoop.\u201d College and University<\/em> 49, no. 3.
\n<\/a>[3] Clipping, \u201cCoed Living Unit Enters Second Year\u201d Pitzer College to Mary Kinnick, Office of the Dean of Women. Received on November 24 1969. Article published in the October 1969 issue of The Participant: Pitzer College Community Quarterly<\/em>. \u201cCoedification, 1967-1974 #4\u201d folder, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[4] Ray, Bill and Karen Thorsen. 1970. \u201cCo-ed Dorms: An Intimate Revolution in Campus Life.\u201d LIFE<\/em>, November 20: 32-41.
\n<\/a>[5] Miller-Bernal, Leslie and Poulson, Susan L. Going Coed: Women\u2019s Experiences in Formerly Men\u2019s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004.
\n<\/a>[6] Pleck, Elizabeth H. Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation after the Sexual Revolution. University of Chicago Press, 2012
\n<\/a>[7] Ballou, Roger A. 1986. “Freshmen in College Residence Halls: A Study of Freshman Perceptions of Residence Hall Social Climates at Ten Colleges and Universities.” Journal Of College And University Student Housing<\/em> 16, no. 1: 7-12.
\n<\/a>[8] Berg, Kathleen M. 1988. “The Prevalence of Eating Disorders in Co-Ed versus Single-Sex Residence Halls.” Journal Of College Student Development<\/em> 29, no. 2: 125-31.
\n<\/a>[9] Schoemer, James R., and William A. McConnell. 1970. “Is there a case for the freshman women’s residence hall?” Personnel & Guidance Journal<\/em> 49, no. 1: 35-40.
\n<\/a>[10] Yongyi, Wang, Ana Arboleda, Mack C. Shelley II, and Donald F. Whalen. 2004. “The Influence of Residence Hall Community on Academic Success of Male and Female Undergraduate Students.” Journal Of College & University Student Housing <\/em>33, no. 1: 16-22.
\n<\/a>[11] Box 3, \u201cHousing Reports, 1929-30\u201d folder, record series 41\/3\/1, Dean of Students, Dean of Women, University Archives.
\n<\/a>[12] Box 3, \u201cHousing Reports, 1939-40\u201d folder, ibid.
\n<\/a>[13] Ibid.
\n<\/a>[14] Background for Proposed Recommendations, \u201cCoeducational Visitation, 1969\u201d folder, \u201cBackground\u201d subsection, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[15] Watson, Arleda. 1963. \u201cPAR \u2014 an Experiment in Co-ed Living,\u201d Daily Illini<\/em>, May 2: 9.
\n<\/a>[16] Vaughan, Pat. 1970. \u201cMRHA tries to work together \u2013 Begin housing reforms,\u201d Daily Illini<\/em>, August 1: 2.
\n<\/a>[17] Schwartz, Kyle. 1970. \u201cViolations on rise \u2013 Strohkorb: Comments on housing crackdown . . .\u201d Daily Illini<\/em> January 8: 2.
\n<\/a>[18] Letter, Chancellor Peltason to President Henry. July 1 1969, \u201cLetter to D.D.H.\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[19] 1969. \u201cTrustees take no stand on room visitation,\u201d Daily Illini<\/em>, September 13: 11 & 13.
\n<\/a>[20] Ibid.
\n<\/a>[21] LIFE<\/em>, article. Ibid, IV.
\n<\/a>[22] Pleck, p. 79.
\n<\/a>[23] Personal memo, R.G. Brown. September 9 1969, \u201cMemos For Record\u201d subsection, \u201cCoeducational Visitation, 1969\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[24] Letter, Sacadat to President Henry. October 24 1969, \u201cSacadat \u2013 President Henry\u201d subsection, ibid.
\n<\/a>[25] Letter, Acting Dean Hugh Satterlee to Arnold W. Strohkorb, subject: \u201cStudent Opinion Survey.\u201d \u201cCoedification, 1967-1974 #1\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[26] Letter, Peltason to Levy and Millet. Spring 1969, \u201cPeltason – Levy, Peltason – Millet\u201d subsection, \u201cCoeducational Visitation, 1969\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[27] Mason, Karen Oppennheim, and Czajka, John L. 1976. \u201cChange in U.S. Women\u2019s Sex-Role Attitudes, 1964-1974.\u201d American Sociological Review<\/em> 41, no. 4: 573-596.
\n<\/a>[28] French, Sandra S., and Nock, Steven L. 1951. \u201cSocial Advantage and Attitudes toward Women\u2019s Roles.\u201d Sociological Inquiry<\/em> 51, no. 1: 55-60.
\n<\/a>[29] Kitay, Philip M. 1940. \u201cA Comparison of the Sexes in their Attitudes and Beliefs about Women: A Study of Prestige Groups.\u201d Sociometry<\/em> 3, no. 4: 399-407.
\n<\/a>[30] The Kitay study does show that women didn\u2019t believe in all of the same things about women that men did, like the idea that women weren\u2019t to be trusted in high-status jobs, or that women lacked creative ability.
\n<\/a>[31] Not all members of the Silent Generation were anti-gender equality, of course; the chancellor and president themselves were strong backers of the coedification policies, even if they were encouraged by pleas from the students.
\n<\/a>[32] Letter, The Office of Student Programs and Services to All Head Residents and Advisors. \u201cApproval\u201d subsection, \u201cCoeducational Visitation, 1969\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[33] Letter, Dean Satterlee to Sammy Rebecca. July 20 1970, \u201cthe Proposed Undergraduate Residence Hall Flexibility Living \u2013 Master Plan.\u201d \u201cCoedification, 1967-1974 #4\u201d folder, box 1, record series 37\/6\/5.
\n<\/a>[34] Letter, Chancellor Peltason to President Henry. October 23 1970, ibid.
\n<\/a>[35] Letter, Don Wilcox to Sammy Rebecca. October 1971, \u201cCoedification, 1967-1974 #1\u201d folder, ibid.
\n<\/a>[36] Colander, Pat. 1975. \u201cThe coed dorm: It\u2019s \u2018no big deal\u2019.\u201d Chicago Tribune<\/em>, April 14: 11 & 13.
\n<\/a>[37] Gehring, Jim. 1972. \u201cIncreased coedification asked.\u201d Daily Illini<\/em>, March 14: 1 & 4.
\n<\/a>[38] Gender-Inclusive Housing Options<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This paper is part of the\u00a0Student Researcher Series\u00a0which showcases research students have conducted using resources in the Student Life and Culture Archives. If you’re a student who is interested in sharing your research on our blog, please contact us.\u00a0 Joseph Porto is a senior in history and anthropology at the University of Illinois. This paper […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":626,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,6],"tags":[69,125,247,287,317,338],"class_list":["post-4769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-found-in-the-archives","category-research","tag-coedification","tag-gender-roles","tag-residence-halls","tag-student-researcher-series","tag-university-housing","tag-women"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/626"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4769"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4769\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10809,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4769\/revisions\/10809"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.library.illinois.edu\/slc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}