DailyPost
Spreads were generally wider in the US from Friday's close as IG underperformed HY and breadth was very negative at around 4-to-1 wideners-to-tighteners (and 2-to-1 steepeners to flatteners). Single-names were much more negative than indices in the higher beta names. HY13 is tighter from Friday's close but is wider on yesterday's weak volume day although it remains below par and intraday was unable to trade below 500bps. As stocks moved to the upper end of their ten-day channel into the close we came off our wides of the day in IG and HY but single-names remained weak overall.
IG13 made its widest intraday wide today (at 87bps) since 12/22 and is now over 10bps wide of its swing tight on 01/11. For the sixth day in a row, IG has made wider tights and wider wides intraday and successively wider closes (the longest run of wider closes since 08/10-17) – as an aside we see 85.875bps and 82.875bps as short-term pivot point support and resistance. IG13 saw 3s5s flatten (as 3Y underperformed) and 5s10s steepen (seems like that butterfly idea is gaining some traction). HY has also followed a similar pattern of intraday wides and tights with intrinsics much more consistently wider day after day than the index for now.
Spreads were mixed in the US from Friday's close with IG worse, HVOL wider, ExHVOL better, and HY rallying (though wider from a low volume close yesterday). IG trades 7.4bps tight (rich) to its 50d moving average, which is a Z-Score of -0.8s.d.. At 84.75bps, IG has closed tighter on only 16 days in the last 271 trading days. The last five days have seen IG converging to its 50d moving average.
Indices typically underperformed single-names with skews mostly narrower as IG underperformed but narrowed the skew, HVOL underperformed but narrowed the skew, ExHVOL outperformed but narrowed the skew, HY outperformed but narrowed the skew.
Only 4% of names in IG moved more than their historical vol would imply as higher vol names outperformed lower vol names by 0.71% to 1.43%. IG's vol is around 6.19% per 2 day period, which leaves 96 names higher vol and 29 lower vol than the index.
The names having the largest impact on IG are UnitedHealth Group Inc (-8.75bps) pushing IG 0.07bps tighter, and International Lease Finance Corp. (+28.04bps) adding 0.19bps to IG. HVOL is more sensitive with American International Group, Inc. pushing it 0.25bps tighter, and International Lease Finance Corp. contributing 0.81bps to HVOL's change today. The less volatile ExHVOL's move today is driven by both UnitedHealth Group Inc (-8.75bps) pushing the index 0.09bps tighter, and Hartford Financial Services Group (+12.5bps) adding 0.14bps to ExHVOL.
The price of investment grade credit fell 0.05% to around 100.65% of par, while the price of high yield credits rose 0.62% to around 99.5% of par. ABX market prices are lower by 0% of par or in absolute terms, 0.07%. Volatility (VIX) is down -0.43pts to 17.61%, with 10Y TSY selling off (yield rising) 2.6bps to 3.7% and the 2s10s curve steepened by 0.2bps, as the cost of protection on US Treasuries rose 0.27bps to 37.5bps. 2Y swap spreads widened 0.4bps to 27.25bps, as the TED Spread tightened by 0.1bps to 0.2% and Libor-OIS improved 0.8bps to 10.5bps.
The Dollar strengthened with DXY rising 0.24% to 77.511, Oil rising $0.95 to $78.95 (outperforming the dollar as the value of Oil (rebased to the value of gold) rose by 0.55% today (a 1.46% rise in the relative (dollar adjusted) value of a barrel of oil), and Gold increasing $7.47 to $1138.4 as the S&P rallies (1146.2 1.23%) outperforming IG credits (84.75bps -0.05%) while IG, which opened wider at 86.38bps, underperforms HY credits. IG11 and XOver11 are +1.56bps and -4.75bps respectively while ITRX11 is +1.63bps to 75.88bps.
Dispersion rose +1.8bps in IG. Broad market dispersion is a little greater than historically expected given current spread levels, indicating more general discrimination among credits than on average over the past year, and dispersion decreasing more than expected today indicating a less systemic and more idiosyncratic narrowing of the distribution of spreads.
Only 19% of IG credits are shifting by more than 3bps and 39% of the CDX universe are also shifting significantly (less than the 5 day average of 43%). The number of names wider than the index stayed at 46 as the day's range fell to 3bps (one-week average 3.8bps), between low bid at 84 and high offer at 87 and higher beta credits (0.92%) underperformed lower beta credits (0.84%).
In IG, wideners outpaced tighteners by around 4-to-1, with 66 credits wider. By sector, CONS saw 58% names wider, ENRGs 71% names wider, FINLs 26% names wider, INDUs 50% names wider, and TMTs 54% names wider. Focusing on non-financials, Europe (ITRX Main exFINLS) underperformed US (IG13 exFINLs) with the former trading at 75.44bps and the latter at 74.13bps.
Cross Market, we are seeing the HY-XOver spread compressing to 103.49bps from 114.67bps, but remains above the short-term average of 94.46bps, with the HY/XOver ratio falling to 1.25x, above its 5-day mean of 1.23x. The IG-Main spread compressed to 8.87bps from 9.25bps, but remains below the short-term average of 9.45bps, with the IG/Main ratio falling to 1.12x, below its 5-day mean of 1.13x.
In the US, non-financials underperformed financials as IG ExFINLs are wider by 0.9bps to 74.1bps, with 19 of the 106 names tighter. while among US Financials, the CDR Counterparty Risk Index fell 1.92bps to 91.44bps, with Finance names (worst) wider by 7.43bps to 420.48bps, Banks (best) tighter by 4.17bps to 98.92bps, and Brokers tighter by 4.5bps to 110.83bps. Monolines are trading wider on average by 85.45bps (1.91%) to 2870.58bps.
In IG, FINLs outperformed non-FINLs (0.28% wider to 1.21% wider respectively), with the former (IG FINLs) wider by 0.4bps to 149.5bps, with 11 of the 19 names tighter. The IG CDS market (as per CDX) is 15.2bps cheap (we'd expect LQD to underperform TLH) to the LQD-TLH-implied valuation of investment grade credit (69.54bps), with the bond ETFs outperforming the IG CDS market by around 3.76bps.
In Europe, ITRX Main ex-FINLs (outperforming FINLs) widened 1.5bps to 75.44bps (with ITRX FINLs -trending wider- weaker by 2.13 to 77.63bps) and is currently trading at the wides of the week's range at 100%, between 75.44 to 65.75bps, and is trending wider. Main LoVOL (trend wider) is currently trading at the wides of the week's range at 99.96%, between 66.53 to 56.64bps. ExHVOL outperformed LoVOL as the differential compressed to 0.3bps from 2.7bps, and remains below the short-term average of 1.68bps. The Main exFINLS to IG ExHVOL differential decompressed to 8.61bps from 6.7bps, and remains above the short-term average of 7.39bps.
The Emerging Market index is 1.3% less risky (3.1bps tighter) to 234.5bps. EM12 (Trend Wider) is currently trading at the wides of the week's range at 79.48%, between 237.6 to 222.3bps. The HY-EM spread compressed to 278.28bps from 291.06bps, but remains above the short-term average of 266.55bps, with the HY/EM ratio falling to 2.19x, above its 5-day mean of 2.16x.
Commentary compliments of www.creditresearch.com
Index/Intrinsics Changes
(From Friday's close)
CDR LQD 50 NAIG -0.51bps to 75.82 (22 wider – 18 tighter <> 39 steeper – 10 flatter).
CDX13 IG +1bps to 84.5 ($-0.04 to $100.66) (FV +0.68bps to 85.32) (65 wider – 26 tighter <> 90 steeper – 31 flatter) – Trend Wider.
CDX13 HVOL +5bps to 140 (FV +1.19bps to 150.05) (18 wider – 7 tighter <> 22 steeper – 7 flatter) – Trend Wider.
CDX13 ExHVOL -0.26bps to 66.97 (FV +0.57bps to 65.33) (47 wider – 48 tighter <> 27 steeper – 68 flatter).
CDX13 HY (30% recovery) Px $+0.71 to $99.59 / -18.2bps to 510.5 (FV +8.4bps to 494.27) (76 wider – 17 tighter <> 56 steeper – 43 flatter) – Trend Wider.
ITRX12 Main +1.75bps to 76 (FV +0.7bps to 75.55) (75 wider – 40 tighter <> 89 steeper – 36 flatter) – Trend Wider
ITRX12 HiVol 0bps to 105 (FV +1.34bps to 106.55) (19 wider – 11 tighter <> 20 steeper – 10 flatter) – Trend Wider
ITRX12 LoVol +2.3bps to 66.84 (FV +0.5bps to 65.88) (56 wider – 39 tighter <> 26 steeper – 69 flatter) – Trend Wider
ITRX12 XOver -2bps to 412 (FV -4.9bps to 432.21) (24 wider – 20 tighter <> 26 steeper – 19 flatter) – No Trend
LCDX12 (65% recovery) Px $0 to $105.4 / 0bps to 388.96 – Trend Wider.
MCDX12 +3bps to 156bps. – Trend Wider.
CDR Counterparty Risk Index fell 2.45bps (-2.63%) to 90.9bps (3 wider – 11 tighter).
CDR Government Risk Index fell 0.57bps (-0.79%) to 71.17bps..
DXY strengthened 0.24% to 77.51.
Oil rose $0.95 to $78.95.
Gold rose $7.47 to $1138.4.
VIX fell 0.45pts to 17.61%.
10Y US Treasury yields rose 2.8bps to 3.71%.
S&P500 Futures gained 1.23% to 1146.2.
The following announcement is from State Representative Carl Sciortino (D-Medford, Somerville:
Last night, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the finalized Education Reform Act, giving state and local officials power to intervene in under-performing schools and districts, and increasing the number of charter schools allowed in the state. Representative Carl Sciortino worked to include several amendments in the bill that will help promote a more equitable public education system.
Rep. Sciortino was able to influence the final bill, through the adoption of several amendments he proposed. Through one of his amendments, mobile and transient students are now included in the final bill and will be addressed as a part of strategies to reduce the achievement gap.
Other amendments filed by Sciortino also made it into the final bill. A provision regulating the amount of surplus funds charter schools are allowed to keep on hand was included, ensuring charters retain the funds they actually need while minimizing the financial cost to their host district. “Charter school funding creates serious challenges to district school budgets,” said Sciortino. “This amendment will help ensure some fairness for kids regardless of what school they attend.” In addition, rules ensuring charter school wait-lists are held by the Department of Education and that vacancies are regularly filled will help to maximize the number of students and families these schools will serve.
Roy Belson, Superintendent of Medford Public Schools, shares Rep. Sciortino’s concern about the condition of schools in the community and the manner in which the state addresses funding. “The Sciortino amendments to the bill are important improvements that can provide greater transparency regarding charter schools and possibly enable local communities to recapture over-payments that can help fund essential programs for the vast majority of students who choose to get their education in their home school system,” said Belson. “This is particularly significant during this difficult financial period.”
“I’m glad I was able to push through changes that will have some positive effect in closing the achievement gap,” said Sciortino. “I have worked closely with teachers, parents, and administrators to reach a better understanding of what we, as legislators, can do to help our struggling schools. Ultimately I did not vote for the bill because it continues an overreliance on MCAS and does not adequately address the charter school tuition formula.”
Editor’s Note: The entire Medford delegation- Rep. Sciortino, Rep. Sean Garballey (D-Arlington, Medford) and Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford, Malden) voted against the education reform bill. The bill essentially puts the state into a more favorable position to qualify for President Barack Obama’ “Race to the Top” funding, which places a heavy emphasis on the creation of charter schools. Rep. Donato declined to comment and Rep. Garballey did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Throughout The University of the South's history there have been several attempts to create a coeducational environment on the Domain. Sewanee was a Southern all-male Episcopal elite college steeped in tradition. Most changes only occurred gradually over time. Though many of The University of the South's leaders pursued the admittance of women to the college, these plans were neglected or pushed aside for other important issues until the late 1960s. Certain administrators of the University attempted to admit undergraduate women in the 1890's, from 1912 to 1915, in 1951, and in 1967 but were met with opposition (Williamson 329). The most important advancements in women attending The University of the South occurred under the Vice-Chancellorships of Benjamin Lawton Wiggins (1893-1909) and Edward McCrady (1951-1971).
A prominent member of the early cause to bring women to Sewanee was Vice-Chancellor Wiggins. Vice-Chancellor Wiggins “tested the possibility” to make “Sewanee a coeducational institution” or to create a separate women's college in the early 1900's (Williamson 66). Wiggins had a progressive view of the college's future that included the arrival of undergraduate women students. Wiggins attempted to “admit women” to the college on several occasions but was stopped by the trustees each time (Williamson 127). At the time, Vice-Chancellor Wiggins did not have enough support from faculty, students, and alumni to bring women to the University of the South.
During Vice-Chancellor Wiggin's, time at the University of the South the college lacked applicants and student enrollment decreased (Williamson 74). The administration decided to modernize the campus instead of allowing women to attend the college to raise enrollment levels. The administration believed that modernizing the campus would make Sewanee more appealing to male prospective students. In the 1890's Sewanee attempted to organize a “coeducational arrangement” to aid in the decreased levels of enrollment (Williamson 75). In 1896 the creation of a committee to start the “coordinate women's college” in Sewanee was set in motion at a trustee's meeting (Williamson 75). Vice-Chancellor Wiggins supported admitting women to receive “advanced degrees” at the University in 1899, but no action was taken to enable this plan (Williamson 75). There was not enough initiative within the committee members or trustees to follow through with the creation of graduate degrees for women. Though women would be able to obtain graduate degrees with Wiggins' plan, there was not sufficient support to enact the admittance of women to the college.
Finally the University of the South granted honorary degrees to women beginning in 1907 after Vice-Chancellor Wiggins convinced the trustees to do so. Laura Drake Gill, dean of Barnard College, received The University of the South's first honorary degree awarded to a woman in 1907 (Williamson 127). Gill was an important woman in the history of Sewanee. Gill presented the achievable plan to bring women students to the Cumberland Plateau by way of a separate woman's college in Sewanee. Other women followed and received honorary degrees from The University of the South.
In the early 20th century the University planned the addition of a women's college in Sewanee as a way to integrate undergraduate women students to the mountain. Laura Drake Gill approached the University of the South in 1911 and proposed the creation of a separate college for women associated with Sewanee (Williamson 127). The trustees entertained the idea to research this plan and ultimately created the plan to build the “College for Women at Sewanee, Tennessee” (Williamson 128). The state of Tennessee had chartered the College for Women at Sewanee, Tennessee to be built on the Domain but set apart from The University of the South (Williamson 128). The University trustees developed regulations and plans for the new women's college. The University of the South would grant degrees to women who graduated from The College for Women at Sewanee (Williamson 128). It was important to Sewanee that the college for Women would stay affiliated with the Episcopal Church. The trustees agreed the College for Women would have an Episcopal chaplain but accept worship services of any religious denomination (Williamson 128). The College for Women at Sewanee was never realized due to financial difficulties (Williamson 129).
Though women were not permitted to earn degrees at The University of the South community members organized several groups to improve the college and town. In 1903 The Fortnightly Club was established for the wives of the University professors (Willis, Dec. 3 2008). It was an elite and exclusive club of 25 women who lived in the community. The professor's wives created the club to educate their minds and provide a social opportunity to influence the Sewanee community (Willis, Dec. 3 2008). The club would meet in a formal setting of an elegant tea to discuss papers and projects they had written on a designated topic. The club seemed to be a secret women's society in Sewanee that upheld the same tradition and academic standards as the University itself. The Fortnightly club is still in existence today and they continue to hold social and community service functions (Willis, Dec. 3 2008). In 1908 women in the Sewanee community created the “Sewanee Civic League” (Williamson 245). The Sewanee Civic League was the “first community civic club” in the town. These women were very active and completed many projects that still affect the University in the 21st century. The Sewanee Civic League drew the blueprints for the University's “stone gates on the highway”, repaired various stone walls, created green spaces on campus, as well as raised money for the University. The Sewanee Women's club formed in 1930 to “promote study and discussion groups and to work together for the welfare of the community” (Williamson 246). The Sewanee women's club also made many contributions to the community as well as enact plans that the Sewanee Civic League had started. Women may not have been earning degrees but they were making a difference to the college in other ways.
In the 1940's under Vice-Chancellor Guerry women were hired as faculty members in the University. During WWII the University allowed women professors to teach. One such woman professor was Charlotte Gailor, who taught drawing (Williamson 213). In 1947 professor Gertrude Van Zandt was the first women professor at Sewanee to be appointed to a tenure track position (Williamson 213). Zandt became an assistant professor of chemistry. The University of the South showed progressive actions with the permanent residence of a female professor.
After World War II in 1948 the university enjoyed a needed swell in enrollment due to the G.I Bill. So many veterans and civilians attended The University of the South that there was a lack of lodging for the students. In the late 1940's many of the veteran's wives lived in Sewanee and were allowed to attend class (Williamson 212). Though women took courses at the college they were not “allowed to earn a degree” at the University (Williamson 212). The University finally had a sufficient enrollment level in the late 1940's and early 1950's.
In the 1960's low enrollment was a complicated issue once again. There was a decrease in applications to the school in the mid-1960's causing concern among the faculty. In the 1960's colleges across the nation were receiving more applications each year, yet Sewanee's application rate was steadily decreasing. In 1967 Sewanee received 200 fewer applications than 2 years previous (Williamson 330). Faculty and administrators proposed several solutions to increase enrollment and attract more students to the college. In May of 1968 The University of the South's college faculty voted to request Vice-Chancellor McCrady to create a committee that would research a “coordinate women's college” on campus (Williamson 330).
The trustees of the University created a committee to research ways to increase enrollment by creating a separate men's or women's college or allow women to attend the existing undergraduate university (Williamson 330). To solve the enrollment issue the committee made a motion at a June meeting with the Vice-Chancellor in 1968 to expand the “student body to one thousand” and allow the admission of “qualified women students in the fall of 1969″ (Williamson 331). The “resolution” was passed unanimously and plans to enroll women in The University of the South we decided. After the University trustees agreed to admit women the Sewanee News announced publicly in 1968 that The University of the South would be a coeducational institution beginning the fall of 1969 (Williamson 331).
There had been opposition toward allowing women to attend the University since the turn of the century. In 1901 when Bishop Gailor and the trustees proposed to allow women to receive graduate level degrees, some students opposed the idea fearing it would “destroy” the traditions of the University (Williamson 75). In 1967 Vice-Chancellor McCrady opposed the admittance of women to the University in part because he “feared perpetual humiliation in athletics” if fewer men attended the college (Williamson 330). McCrady had a plan to create a second men's college once funds were available. McCrady strongly opposed the idea when faculty proposed the creation of a women's college before the men's college. Vice-Chancellor McCrady's plan to create separate men's and women's institutions was quite similar to other college presidents. Unfortunately, with the low enrollment rates and financial difficulties of the University of the South the realization a second men's college was not feasible. Vice-Chancellor McCrady believed that women would only be a part of the University of the South in a separate but equal women's college affiliated with the main men's colleges.
In the 1950's Vice-Chancellor McCrady would only agree to the arrival of women if they were part of a separate college similar to Wiggins and Gill's plan (Williamson 292). Time after time the major issue keeping women out of Sewanee was a lack of money to create a separate affiliated college. Vice-Chancellor McCrady's desire to build another men's college was a much greater priority to him than creating a women's college. When Chancellor Girault McArthur Jones created a nine-person committee in 1967 to research the admittance of women to Sewanee the committee found that the University faculty had “mixed” opinions on the matter of separate colleges for men and women (Williamson 330). The University faculty was “overwhelmingly” in favor of admitting women to The University of the South. The struggle between the Vice-Chancellor and faculty of the University to become a coeducational school was not uncommon in the late 1960's in undergraduate institutions in America (Miller-Bernal 12).
Many colleges in the late 1960's such as Vassar and Wells had become coeducational institutions by creating a separate women's college (Miller-Bernal 12). Colleges created coeducational systems to “ensure enrollments” and “increase academic standards” (Miller-Bernal 12). In 1986 researchers found that 68 out of 169 single-sex liberal arts colleges had transitioned to coeducational institutions since 1971 in part to lower debts, increase endowments, and increase enrollment (Miller-Bernal 12-13). Private men's colleges that admitted women in the late 1960's mostly benefited from the shift to a coeducational institution. The coeducational colleges had a larger enrollment, more scholarships, “better student morale”, and an increased equity (Miller-Bernal 14).
In the late 1960's many universities were developing long term plans and taking actions to become coeducational institutions due to financial and social pressures (Poulson 500). Several universities saw great improvement to their institutions with the presence of both sexes in the same college. The women's movement that was sweeping the nation only aided in male universities going coed.
The collective trend to teach both men and women at the same undergraduate institution influenced many single-sex colleges and universities to make the switch. At Princeton University in 1968 the trustees decided to become coeducational in order to “change with the times” (Miller-Bernal 12). The president of Fairfield University believed that the women who first attended the college when it became coeducational in 1971 wanted to prove themselves (Fitzpatrick 1). At Fairfield University the women added “tremendously to the intellectual growth and social conscious” of the university (Fitzpatrick 1). As at many schools, Fairfield University felt pressure to admit women because of the “national ferment and social change” and a “new wave of feminism” in the late 1960's (Fitzpatrick 2). The change to a coeducational environment could be a very positive one for institutions of higher education.
Economic and social pressures forced colleges to find new ways attract students and keep their doors open. In the 1950's single-sex universities were “regarded as expressions of diversity” in undergraduate education (Maeroff 1). Some single-sex colleges wanted to provide young adults with the option of an environment absent of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, colleges in the late 1960's and 1970's “were facing rising costs and a declining pool of students” (Poulson 493). Though single-sex universities took pride in their educational history, allowing both sexes to matriculate was often the only way they could stay in business.
There were many successful transitions to coeducation in higher education. In less than a year Georgetown University was able to become coeducational due to little opposition from faculty, students, and alumni (Poulson 500). The Georgetown provost favored coeducation because it would aid the University's growing number of “academic programs” and “assimilate” operating costs of university buildings (Poulson 494). In 1968 the college's board voted unanimously to admit women to the all male College of Arts and Sciences (Poulson 500). Schools that became coeducational saw an increase in the 'academic quality” of their students (Poulson 494). Some colleges believed that the addition of women in the student body would attract more male applicants (Poulson 494). Men sometimes chose all-male colleges not because they were all-male but because the college had a strong academic history or a desirable professional program. Georgetown had more male applicants when women were admitted to the college (Poulson 494). Evidently Georgetown improved its college with the acceptance of women.
Another successful transition from a single-sex college atmosphere to a coeducational one was Boston College. In 1969 Boston College decided to become completely coeducational in all its undergraduate schools. Boston College had their first all coeducational class in the fall class of 1970 with little resistance from faculty and students (Poulson 499). Many newly coeducational universities merged campus's with former women's colleges. In 1974 Boston College expanded and absorbed the women's Newton College when Newton was facing financial bankruptcy (Poulson 499). The merge benefited both institutions and aided in the integration of men and women into one university.
While many undergraduate programs had chosen to admit women and men, several schools opposed the coeducational trend. At Lincoln College male students feared that the admittance of women would create stricter social regulations (Miller-Bernal 90). When women were admitted at Lincoln College in the 1960's, women had more regulations to protect them due to their “relative defenselessness” (Miller-Bernal 90). Lincoln's view on women was not a progressive one for the times. A new women's movement developed in the late 1960's resulting in many women questioning the “inequalities” in education (Miller-Bernal 11). Nationally “single-sex” colleges “seemed old-fashioned” as all types of integration was becoming the norm (Miller-Bernal 11). Some single sex colleges worried that the new coeducational universities would be more appealing and remove the number of students in the enrollment (Miller-Bernal 11).
Older professors, alumni, and upperclassmen students attached to certain college traditions exhibited moderate to staunch opposition to the integration of the sexes at male colleges. Fairfield University had faculty and student opposition after changing from an all male to a coeducational institution in 1971(Fitzpatrick 1). Some older professors and most upperclassmen males exhibited resentment and resistance to the presence of women on campus but did not formally protested the coed situation (Fitzpatrick 1). Most male students at Fairfield University who did not support women on campus because they had chosen the college based on its “all-male” standing and disliked that they could no longer act themselves in social situations (Fitzpatrick 2). Universities had to consider the implications of their decision to become coeducational in regard to the donations contributed by alumni. Eventually opposition subsided and women were slowly more warmly welcomed to Fairfield University.
Single-sex universities created a specific style of education that was fiercely protected for decades by certain groups within those institutions. The Dean of Columbia College in the late 1800's, John Howard Van Amringe, refused to give into coeducational trends believing that “it would distract the young men” with a woman present in the classroom (Maeroff 2). Some men attended all male colleges to avoid women as well as focus on their studies. In 1975 the president of Amherst College opposed coeducation because “students favored keeping the college all-male” (Maeroff 2). Sewanee's Vice-Chancellor McCrady had similar reasons for not supporting the admittance of women to the undergraduate university. There was a large pressure on single-sex universities to switch to coeducational institutions after the more “prestigious single-sex, private” schools had admitted the opposite sex (Maeroff 2).
In 1968 the president and administrators of the all-male University of Notre Dame started creating plans to merge with an all female university and become coeducational (Poulson 496). In the fall of 1971, The University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College started to negotiate a merger. Notre Dame's provost believed that reasons to merge the male University of Notre Dame with the all female Saint Mary's College were not “academic” but “political” and would not, in the end, be the most beneficial move for the two colleges (Poulson 498). Schools had to research and poll to find out what would be best for their students based on the school's specific situation. At Saint Mary's College women decided to boycott classes and Notre Dame male students were deeply “disappointed” by the planned merge (Poulson 498). Due to major disagreements on the government of the proposed merged college the plans to unite the colleges stopped in February of 1972 (Poulson 497). Notre Dame did admit women in to the college soon after the merger fell through. A “co-exchange” program was created as a compromise to full coeducation. In the “co-exchange program about one hundred women and men students could take classes that were not offered at their own institution (Poulson 493). The negotiation between male and female colleges to merge was a delicate process that took very careful planning and support from administration, faculty, students, and alumni.
Though Sewanee would not become coeducational until the late 1960's, women were an important part of The University of the South's history from the early days. In the late 1890's women were allowed to attend certain graduate level classes (Williamson). The presence and importance of women on The Domain slowly became more prominent. In 1896 the University recorded 2 women students at the Sewanee Summer Music School (Williamson 75). The two music students marked the arrival of women on campus, though it would take half a century to see a steady active presence of women at the all-male Episcopal university. Eleanor Thomas audited a class at Sewanee in 1901 “on the condition that she did not talk” (Williamson 75). There was a fear that women would distract the male students and a perspective that women did not belong in the classroom. Later in 1904, under Vice-Chancellor Wiggins, 4 unnamed women graduated from the Sewanee Training School for Nurses (Williamson 75). Though a few women studied at The University of the South, the woman's names were not always recorded and their presence was not advertised. Since the University relied greatly on contributions, Sewanee did not want to lose funding from disapproving alumni. The University of the South wanted to stay an Episcopal southern men's college and therefore kept the attendance of any women a quiet issue.
Since 1890 The University of the South attempted to solve low enrollment problems with the creation of a coeducational system (Williamson 75). As more colleges and universities in America were making the switch from single-sex colleges to coeducational institutions Sewanee's faculty realized the positive possibility of accepting women to the University of the South. Sewanee loosened its grip on the strict all-male tradition and was part of the national coeducational trend in 1968.
In 1967, St. Mary's school for girls closed and the University decided take over operations of the school (Williamson 331). St. Mary's school put a great strain on the University of the South. The cost of running the school was too great so in 1968 the University closed St. Mary's and allowed women to attend the Sewanee Military Academy (Williamson 331). The Sewanee Military Academy became the integrated Sewanee Academy. The integration of women into the Academy put pressure on the undergraduate University of the South to admit women as well. In 1968 the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) voted to admit women to undergraduate universities (Williamson 330). Sewanee professors were also in favor of admitting women to increase enrollment and improve the finances of the University. The college had motive, faculty and trustee support, and a means to execute the switch from an all-male institution to a welcoming coeducational University of the South. In 1969 the first class of both male and female students came to Sewanee.
In September 1969 one hundred and three women were enrolled at The University of the South (Williamson 331). Several of the women were transfers students in several class years. The University employed a new dean, Elizabeth Morrow, to provide support for women and ease the transition from a men's college to a “coeducational” institution (Williamson 331). The University's actions to welcome women students started slow but picked up speed as the college adjusted. Sewanee learned how to change the climate of the university to integrate women yet still keep the important traditions that define the school.
Though the University of the South welcomed and encouraged women to live on the domain, the first women attending the school encountered some difficulties. Some males on campus were very welcoming but women on campus were known as “home town honeys” and still brought other women from off campus to parties (Barlament). Women were challenged by certain professors in classrooms in the beginning of coeducation as a way to have the women prove that they belonged at Sewanee (Barlament). As the years progressed women surpassed the men academically and did prove that they were contributing members of the community (Barlament).
The women who attended the University of the South made their mark by founding several clubs and organizations. The women of Sewanee created the Pink and White Ribbon Societies in the 1970's as a social community oriented organization (Williamson 245). The ribbon societies gave women the opportunity to be a part of a club. After the arrival of sororities on campus, though, the ribbon societies became less important (Williamson 245). Sororities became the social center of many women's lives. The class dress code of “coat and tie or dress” was bent in the winter, allowing women to wear pants when there was “inclement weather” (Williamson 320). The policy of class dress was encouraged for both men and women.
The University of the South had several ideas concerning the residence of women on campus. In 1970 an open dorm, coed, policy for the university was proposed but refused by the administration (Williamson 325). Though the integration of women into Sewanee was successful, Vice-Chancellor McCrady continued to separate women in some ways from the main campus. McCrady planned to lodge women in Phillips Hall and soon create a separate women's college near Morgan's Steep (Williamson 331). This plan was not realized due to a lack of funds. The University placed the new enrolled women, instead, in Benedict Hall (Williamson 331). One woman student stated that Benedict was “like a big sorority” (Barlament). Though the University tried to keep the men separate from women “guys were caught climbing over wrought-iron gates” to get into the female dorm (Barlament). As the University acquired funds several more dorms were built to house the larger student population including Johnson Hall and Cleveland Hall. The University had to review each aspect of the school in order to fully include the women on the campus.
The University of the South continued to make changes as they transitioned from an all-male university to a coeducational university. Two years after the women were admitted to the University 16% of the students were female (Williamson 331). The number of women attending Sewanee continued to increase and in 1981 43% of the student body was female (Williamson 331). In the past 10 years female graduates have outnumbered male graduates (Barlament). There are also now many more female faculty than the 1960's, 6o women teach the students. After women were admitted to the university enrollment rates did increase. The goal to attract a larger number of students to the college was a success. Though the University of the South had more bodies and more tuition money from students many improvements and changes to the University were made to serve to both sexes on campus. Sewanee followed the national trend of single-sex institutions to shirt to a coeducational learning environment. Sewanee had a relatively successful shift to a coeducational institution with the help of faculty support. The oppositions to the change were quelled and overcome as time passed and the strong traditions of the college became instilled in the women that attended.
Works Cited
1.Barlament, Laura. “Sewanee Women: The Next Generation.” Sewanee Magazine. Winter 2006.
2.Fitzpatrick, Jackie. “Coeducation at Fairfield, 20 years later.” New York Times 16 June 1996: 1-3.
3.Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson (Eds.). Going Coed: Women's Experiences in Formerly Men's Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004.
4.Maeroff, Gene, I.. “Education; the all-male college vanishing.” The New York Times 21 August 1984: 1-2.
5.Poulson, Susan L., and Loretta P. Higgins. “Gender, Coeducation, and the Transformation of Catholic Identity in American Catholic Higher Education .” The Catholic Historical Review 89.3(2003): 489-510.
6.Williamson, Samuel R., Annie Armour, Gerald L. Smith, Henry Nutt, Jr Parsley, and Jon Meacham. Sewanee Sesquicentennial History: The Making of the University of the South. Sewanee sesquicentennial history project. Sewanee, Tenn: The University of the South, 2008.
7.Willis, Mrs. John C. Personal interview. 3 December. 2008.
Tags: equity