“An Intimate Revolution in Campus Life”?: Gender Roles and their Impact on Dorm Coedification

This paper is part of the Student Researcher Series which 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. 

Joseph Porto 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.

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 “Proposed Undergraduate Residence Hall Flexible Living – Master Plan” (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’s first genuinely coed dorms. The process was enacted on a dorm-by-dorm basis, representing the “Flexible” 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.

Review of Previous Research

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 “History of Coedification,” Brian J. Willoughby’s “The Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses.” Alas, it was not available within the University’s databases or in any libraries that I could request it from (if I wasn’t 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] Generally, UIUC’s coedification policy was implemented around the same time as other public colleges in the area.

I did find other works that discussed coeducation in general, mainly Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson’s Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000.[5] 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’s book also helped me understand general attitudes of the time around coedification/coeducation.[6] I also found a plethora of contemporary articles that examined problems that arise in coed vs. single-sex halls.[7,8,9,10] 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’ GPAs, attitudes toward the university, or conduct (Schoemer and McConnell).

Before Coedification: 1930-1968

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 “twin city homes for student roomers” (these were local families who hosted students in their homes), 16% lived in one of the three women’s residence halls, and the rest lived in co-ops or houses managed by church boards.[11] According to another report from 1940, most female students still lived in “student roomer” homes, with their parents, or in sororities.[12]

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’t allowed inside the women’s 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] 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 “presentable”. The restrictive rules in the women’s halls gradually became more relaxed between 1940 and 1960, as “self-regulated women’s hours” were established, female students were given keys to access the dorms after they were locked, and phone call bans were lifted.[14] Unmarried men and women were still not permitted to live together or visit each other’s university-approved residences until the late sixties, however, with the Pennsylvania Avenue Residence Hall (PAR) being the only exception to this rule.

PAR was the very first coeducational dorm at U of I, constructed in 1962, in what the Daily Illini called “An Experiment in Co-ed Living.”[15] This experiment was conducted relatively early compared to the rest of the country—mass coedification nationwide (and at UIUC) didn’t occur until the late sixties and early seventies, however, PAR wasn’t exactly revolutionary. The building’s 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’t 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.

Student Groups and Ground-Up Change

A student-powered rhetoric began to develop on campus in the mid-sixties – in fashion with the revolutionary youth culture of the time – that challenged the university’s restrictive policies. Students formed new coalitions and criticized the administration’s practices of in loco parentis, or policy acting in place of the students’ 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’s Residence Hall Association (MRHA) and the Women’s 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)—the latter of the last two producing the Master Plan that enabled coedification on campus.

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’s 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’t 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] SHAC was a group created as a subsidiary of the office of housing, comprised of male and female student leaders – resident advisors, hall presidents, members of hall student governments, etc. – who lobbied for student’s interests from within the administration’s infrastructure.

Students’ 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 “crack down,” and labelled the University’s housing regulations as “the most archaic in the nation.”[17] Later that year, on Friday March 20^th 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.

Coeducational Visitation and National Attitudes on Gender

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’s 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: “Rooms shall be unlocked and available to access at all times when a guest is present in a host’s room,” and “A procedure [must exist] for escorting guests to and from private areas of the living unit.”[18] 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.

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’s 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 “put the chancellor in an almost intolerable situation come September.”[19] 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]

The rules laid out for the visitation program took a fairly standard approach when compared with other colleges’ policies from around the same time. Some had more relaxed rules, (Oberlin had unlimited visitation hours)[21] 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 – many of which had been in place for as long as the institutions themselves – 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: “Dorm visitation hours for male guests were three hours on Sunday afternoons; with a visitor in the room, at least three of the couple’s four feet had to be touching the floor at all times.”[22] Granted, most schools weren’t 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.

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’t allowed to visit each other’s 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.

Robert G. Brown, Associate Dean of Student Programs and Services, expressed a fear for female students’ 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: “I felt that we would have great difficulty in rationalizing central registration for the men’s halls as the male students and staff did not view women visiting men’s residence halls as a big threat to security.”[23] In another instance of concern for female students’ 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’t being fair to its female students by forcing them to live in coed dorms, and that because of this, “Our daughters themselves are complaining that their privacy is denied them.”[24] This statement is in line with female students’ 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’s perceptions of the new policies), 70% of female students responded yes to the question, “Would you prefer to live in a hall segregated by sex?” compared to 29% of men. Furthermore, 61% of women and only 18% of men responded yes to the question, “Do you think, in principle, the University should provide a residential area (House/Floor) in which NO visitation would be permitted?”[25]

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] The men’s 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.

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’s 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’s 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 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 “baby boomer” 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.

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 “men and women should have equal roles,” and a seven indicating a complete agreement with the statement “women’s place is in the home.” The responses were then collected and used to rank white and black males and females as either “liberal,” “neutral,” or “conservative” 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 and the least liberal 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] 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] 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.

Thus, it can safely be assumed that white women entering UIUC in 1968 (the vast majority of students were white at this time, although “Project 500” 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’s 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 – the Silent Generation – 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] 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]

Now, with the perspective of these new students’ parents in mind (as well as the administration and alumni, who were also a part of the previous generation)[31], 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, “In addition, women’s 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.”[32] These restrictive policies, however, influenced by traditional gender roles and voted into practice by the residents themselves, would not last forever.

The Master Plan

The influence of the sexual revolution that was sweeping the country didn’t 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 23^rd, 1970.[33] 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.

After minor revisions – the Office of Student Housing’s main concern was producing an accurate cost analysis – Rebecca sent the plan to Dean of Students Hugh Satterlee on July 20^th, 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: “In view of the Board’s 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.”[34] 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’ refusal of in loco parentis policies.[35] 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.

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, “The 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].”[36] 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]

Conclusion

The coedification process at U of I and across the nation may not have been the “Intimate Revolution in Campus Life” 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’s dorms took no issue with integrating women, and the women’s dorms most certainly took issue with integrating men. Female students weren’t thought of as a threat to the male students’ 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.

Looking ahead to today, the halls at Illinois are more diverse than they were in the sixties. Incoming freshmen can choose to live in single-sex or coed living arrangements, and the residence halls are 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]

[1] Letter, Robert C. Hughes, Associate Director of University Housing at Michigan to the Implementation Subcommitte, Coedification Committee, MRHA Office – Weston Hall. December 16 1969, box 1, “Coedification, 1967-1974 #4” folder, record series 37/6/5, Facilities and Services, Housing Division, Housing Coedification File, 1967-1984, University Archives.
[2] Thomas, Ronald W. 1974. “Coed Housing in One Fell Swoop.” College and University 49, no. 3.
[3] Clipping, “Coed Living Unit Enters Second Year” 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. “Coedification, 1967-1974 #4” folder, record series 37/6/5.
[4] Ray, Bill and Karen Thorsen. 1970. “Co-ed Dorms: An Intimate Revolution in Campus Life.” LIFE, November 20: 32-41.
[5] Miller-Bernal, Leslie and Poulson, Susan L. Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004.
[6] Pleck, Elizabeth H. Not Just Roommates: Cohabitation after the Sexual Revolution. University of Chicago Press, 2012
[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 16, no. 1: 7-12.
[8] Berg, Kathleen M. 1988. “The Prevalence of Eating Disorders in Co-Ed versus Single-Sex Residence Halls.” Journal Of College Student Development 29, no. 2: 125-31.
[9] Schoemer, James R., and William A. McConnell. 1970. “Is there a case for the freshman women’s residence hall?” Personnel & Guidance Journal 49, no. 1: 35-40.
[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 33, no. 1: 16-22.
[11] Box 3, “Housing Reports, 1929-30” folder, record series 41/3/1, Dean of Students, Dean of Women, University Archives.
[12] Box 3, “Housing Reports, 1939-40” folder, ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Background for Proposed Recommendations, “Coeducational Visitation, 1969” folder, “Background” subsection, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[15] Watson, Arleda. 1963. “PAR — an Experiment in Co-ed Living,” Daily Illini, May 2: 9.
[16] Vaughan, Pat. 1970. “MRHA tries to work together – Begin housing reforms,” Daily Illini, August 1: 2.
[17] Schwartz, Kyle. 1970. “Violations on rise – Strohkorb: Comments on housing crackdown . . .” Daily Illini January 8: 2.
[18] Letter, Chancellor Peltason to President Henry. July 1 1969, “Letter to D.D.H.” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[19] 1969. “Trustees take no stand on room visitation,” Daily Illini, September 13: 11 & 13.
[20] Ibid.
[21] LIFE, article. Ibid, IV.
[22] Pleck, p. 79.
[23] Personal memo, R.G. Brown. September 9 1969, “Memos For Record” subsection, “Coeducational Visitation, 1969” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[24] Letter, Sacadat to President Henry. October 24 1969, “Sacadat – President Henry” subsection, ibid.
[25] Letter, Acting Dean Hugh Satterlee to Arnold W. Strohkorb, subject: “Student Opinion Survey.” “Coedification, 1967-1974 #1” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[26] Letter, Peltason to Levy and Millet. Spring 1969, “Peltason – Levy, Peltason – Millet” subsection, “Coeducational Visitation, 1969” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[27] Mason, Karen Oppennheim, and Czajka, John L. 1976. “Change in U.S. Women’s Sex-Role Attitudes, 1964-1974.” American Sociological Review 41, no. 4: 573-596.
[28] French, Sandra S., and Nock, Steven L. 1951. “Social Advantage and Attitudes toward Women’s Roles.” Sociological Inquiry 51, no. 1: 55-60.
[29] Kitay, Philip M. 1940. “A Comparison of the Sexes in their Attitudes and Beliefs about Women: A Study of Prestige Groups.” Sociometry 3, no. 4: 399-407.
[30] The Kitay study does show that women didn’t believe in all of the same things about women that men did, like the idea that women weren’t to be trusted in high-status jobs, or that women lacked creative ability.
[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.
[32] Letter, The Office of Student Programs and Services to All Head Residents and Advisors. “Approval” subsection, “Coeducational Visitation, 1969” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[33] Letter, Dean Satterlee to Sammy Rebecca. July 20 1970, “the Proposed Undergraduate Residence Hall Flexibility Living – Master Plan.” “Coedification, 1967-1974 #4” folder, box 1, record series 37/6/5.
[34] Letter, Chancellor Peltason to President Henry. October 23 1970, ibid.
[35] Letter, Don Wilcox to Sammy Rebecca. October 1971, “Coedification, 1967-1974 #1” folder, ibid.
[36] Colander, Pat. 1975. “The coed dorm: It’s ‘no big deal’.” Chicago Tribune, April 14: 11 & 13.
[37] Gehring, Jim. 1972. “Increased coedification asked.” Daily Illini, March 14: 1 & 4.
[38] Gender-Inclusive Housing Options.