Since its founding in 1746, Princeton University had been an institution of higher learning for male students. In September of 1969, the first full-time female undergraduates enrolled at Princeton. The ability of the campus to physically accommodate a significant number of women students was one factor leading to the decision to end Princeton's all-male tradition. Campus planning and architectural choices then helped facilitate Princeton's transition to a coeducational institution. In addition, the enrollment of female undergraduates impacted the physical development of the campus. An investigation of the relationship between coeducation and buildings Princeton offers insight into this historical event.
The first woman student did not arrive at Princeton until 1961 when Sabra Meservey GS'66, a Princeton resident, was admitted to the Graduate Department of Oriental Studies. According to Dean of the Graduate School, Donald Hamilton '35, "Mrs. Meservey has been admitted to Princeton because this university has seemed a particularly and peculiarly appropriate place for her studies." He added, "[The University] does not plan to make general admissions of women graduate students. It has no residential facilities for women students."[5] Thus, architectural considerations played a role in whether or not Princeton would educate women graduate students. Nevertheless, Meservey started a trend as eight more graduate students arrived in 1962. By 1968, there were over 100 female graduate students studying at Princeton.[6]
Three years after Sabra Meservey's arrival on the Princeton campus, the first female undergraduate students enrolled at Princeton. In 1964, five female students were admitted to Princeton's Cooperative Undergraduate Program for Critical Languages. The program offered intensive languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Russian, or Turkish which were not commonly taught at other universities. The women, called "Critties," would stay at Princeton for one or two years and would return to their own undergraduate institutions without receiving a Princeton diploma. The Princeton Theological Seminary housed four of the women, and the fifth lived in a private residence.[7] Although there were relatively few women students on campus in the mid-sixties, their presence suggested that coeducation could be a success.
In an interview with the Daily Princetonian in May 1967, President Goheen claimed that, "It is inevitable that at some point in the future, Princeton is going to move into the education of women. The only questions now are those of strategy, priority, and timing."[8] Although the desire to admit women at Princeton had begun as early as the 1940s, the widespread calls for change intensified in the mid-1960s. During this period, Ivy League competitors Harvard and Brown had joined with women's colleges, and Yale was also considering a coordinate system with Vassar. The rise of the women's movement, the expanding role of women in society, and dissatisfied brought the issue of coeducation to the further pressured the university to reassess its all-male tradition.[9]
Goheen seemed to favor a coordinate system over coeducation. In fact, in early 1967, he had spoken to Mrs. Esther Raushenbush, president of Sarah Lawrence College about a possible merger between the two institutions. Princeton even offered land across Carnegie Lake in order to facilitate the integration of Sarah Lawrence students into Princeton. However, the idea was dropped after three months of discussion.[10] In particular, representatives from Sarah Lawrence feared that their college would lose its unique identity by merging with an all-male university.[11]
Princeton would be a better university if women were admitted to the undergraduate college. Our studies also show that the fiscal obstacles, although considerable, are far less than we supposed, and we judge it feasible to overcome them.[13]In 1968, there was excess capacity in certain departments where women were more likely to enroll. In addition, as a result of the expanded faculty, the coeducation would not require the hiring of new professors. Recent building projects eliminated the need for new classrooms or labs.[14] Because of Princeton's unique situation in 1968, it was likely that the $25 million capital costs would rise in the next five years. This consideration gave the plan a sense of urgency.[15]
The Report recommended to maintain the current male enrollment, while increasing the number of women accepted to a goal of 1000, or 25% of the student body. It also favored a coeducational plan over a coordinate system for financial and social reasons. The greatest costs would be in housing, dining, and social facilities because no excess capacity existed in these areas. Although the Patterson Report did not delve deeply into the physical implementation of the plan to educate women, it did suggest three sites for new student residences: 1) Between University Place and Alexander Road; 2) South of the New New Quad (now Butler College); 3) Adjacent to the Broadmead faculty housing. Furthermore, the Report recommended two plans to accommodate the rise in student enrollment. Although financially similar, the plans would have different impacts on student life. Plan I would add 1000 students in four "houses" of 250 students, each with dining and social space. Each group of houses would share a kitchen, library, and common space. In addition, the first phase of a new student center would replace the existing center. This plan would provide an alternative to social life at the eating clubs on Prospect Street. Plan II responded to the desire for the freedom and responsibility of apartment living. It called for a student apartment complex for 1000 students, with cooking facilities in each apartment, combined with a much larger student center. These plans would guide the actual implementation of coeducation.[16]
A subcommittee of Trustees, under Harold Helm, worked with the administration and faculty to test the findings and recommendations of the Patterson Report. They also arranged meetings with alumni across the country to discuss the proposal to educate women at Princeton. With strong faculty support, the Trustees announced on January 12, 1969, "The largest single decision that has faced Princeton this century." The Trustees approved "in principle" the decision to coeducate but instructed the administration to ensure that campus facilities could accommodate new female students before establishing a timetable for implementation.[17]
A series of architectural displays located in the Princeton University archives suggest that many different proposals were considered to accommodate the admission of women students. According to an accessioning sheet, these displays were used for presentations to the Trustees. The maps show various phases and stages of plans for housing women and providing dining facilities. New colleges, modifications of existing buildings, and Unfortunately, the plans are not dated so it is very difficult to determine at what stage in the process they were proposed. For example, these displays may have accompanied presentations to the Trustees years before the decision to coeducate. However, it is more likely that they correspond to presentations made after January of 1969. In either case, these plans illustrate the complexity of transforming Princeton to a coeducational institution as well as the thorough exploration of this process by the administration and trustees.[18]
A special faculty-administrative-student Committee on Coeducation, chaired by Goheen, proposed to the Trustees a timetable for implementing coeducation [Figure 1]. The plan would admit 130 women in the fall of 1969, and gradually increase female enrollment as residential and social spaces became available though new construction and renovations. The university would only spend $200,000 in the first year, and all of the freshmen women would be housed in Pyne Hall. No new classroom or lecture space would be necessary. However, Dillon Gym and older dorms would require renovations. Over the next four years, 160 freshmen students and more transfers would be accepted. In order to meet the expansion of the number of female students, a 400-student new college with a dining and social center, would be completed. Two locations suggested for the new college were behind Pyne Hall or the New New Quad. During this five-year period another 100 spaces in a dormitories-apartments would be necessary. The committee proposed that a complex be built perhaps behind McCarter. Meanwhile, older dormitories and the commons would be renovated, the infirmary would be altered, and Holder Hall was scheduled to become another residential college. The committee encouraged that the university continue to accept more female students as finances permitted until the goal of 1000 was reached.[19]
The plan would require $7.8 million in new and renovated facilities, and $2 million in endowment, over five years to enroll the first 650 women. These costs were lower than earlier estimates because in May of 1969, the University acquired the Princeton Inn which was scheduled to be converted into a residential college for 375 students by 1970. Built by the University in 1924, and a major stockholder ever since, the Inn provided a haven for alumni, weekend dates, local businesses. However, the use of the Inn had been steadily declining, and by 1969, the University was the largest local user. Financial Vice President, Ricardo Mestres recommended the procurement of the Inn because the University was a major stockholder in what had become an unprofitable investment. Fortunately, the facilities lent themselves well to a new residential and social center and the university would save time and money by converting the Inn to a dormitory instead of constructing new residences.[20] Interestingly enough, almost a century earlier, the University took over the University Hotel, located on Nassau Street and University Place for similar efficiency reasons.[21]
The acquisition of the Princeton Inn helped convince the Trustees that the University would be able to accommodate women students at a reasonable cost. The Trustees' financial worries were further eased by a then-anonymous gift of $4 million from charter trustee, Laurance S. Rockefeller '32. Rockefeller's donation was intended to encourage the Trustees to decide in favor in coeducation. On April 20, 1969, the Trustees announced their decision to accept the proposal presented by the joint faculty-administrative-student committee. Princeton would admit women 90 freshmen students and 40 transfers to the undergraduate program that fall.[22]
The women students were housed in Pyne Hall, which took the name of "Pink Hall," in reference to its female residents. Administrators thought that consolidating the women to one dormitory would alleviate isolation. But instead, this policy aggravated the fishbowl effect and the new students attracted even more attention from curious undergraduates, media representatives, and others. In order to make the women feel welcome, Pyne was refurbished and furnished with University sofa beds, off-white bureaus and desks, and built-in bookshelves. Uniform matching bedspreads, curtains, and bed bolsters decorated each room. For security reasons, campus phones and emergency door locks were installed and a proctor was stationed in the courtyard.
Aside from the renovation of Pyne Hall, the first year of coeducation brought about some other physical changes on campus. Firestone library acquired more carrels and additional study areas, and duplicate copies of books and journals. McCosh infirmary was altered in order to permit segregated beds. Eventually, a new locker room for women was created in Dillon Gymnasium and a fencing room was converted to a modern dance studio. However, as predicted, the physical changes required to accommodate women were minor.[24]
After its first year as a coeducational institution, the University assessed its progress and success in accommodating the female students. Several developments led to the administration to deviate from the implementation of the original plan. First, he disadvantages of concentrating women in one campus location, including security and isolation problems led the University to decision seek to house women in other locations on campus. Therefore, by 1970, women were to live in eight locations, including Brown, Pyne, and Princeton Inn. Second, University planners faced problems accommodating the scheduled increase of students. The University faced unanticipated renovation difficulties at the Princeton Inn as well as zoning and neighborhood problems. As a result, Inn was only able to house 320, rather than the 375 as planned. On the other hand, a report of the Dorm Occupancy Committee which rerated all housing facilities using uniform standards based on square footage, closet space, furniture arrangement, discovered a net gain of between 113 and 128 spaces in existing university housing. Rerating further enabled the projected enrollment to be achieved without constructing any new dining or housing facilities. As a result of these developments, the Administration revised its schedule to increase female enrollment. The new Phase I planning would allow a total of 800 women students to enroll at Princeton by 1973. The projected enrollment was therefore higher than the original Phase I goal of 650 by 1973. The Phase II goal of 1000 students would be achieved by improving the male-female ratio as fast as possible while maintaining the number of male undergraduate students at around 3200.[25]
The increased student enrollment, as a result of coeducation, encouraged the University to explore campus development. In September 1969, President Goheen appointed I.M. Pei and Partners of New York to study the southwestern corner of the campus, primarily University Place between Pyne Hall and Princeton Inn. The area of development would include the Railroad Station, New South, McCarter, and University-owned warehouses.[26] In particular, the company was asked to design new student housing to meet the timetable of university development of coeducation. According to a Department of Public Information News Release, the architects were chosen because of their previous experience in housing and university buildings especially in context of community development. The firm had received many design awards including a 1968 Architectural Firm Award by the American Institute of Architecture (AIA). The architects had also been recognized for their campus experience by AIA honor awards for the DesMoines Art Center (1969), University Plaza of New York University (1967), and School of Journalism at Syracuse University (1966).[27] In addition, I.M. Pei's familiarity with the Princeton campus may have influenced the University's decision to hire his architectural firm. Between 1943 and 1945, Pei completed his voluntary national defense service in a military information unit, based in Princeton.[28] Pei's exposure to the gothic campus may also have encouraged him to seek or accept the position.
Interim reports to Trustee Committee on Grounds and Buildings on January 17, 1970, described a four-phase development plan including a proposed social and dining facility near Pyne, adjacent student housing and the relocation for the University store, community apartments, and a residential college with dining and social south of Pyne. The completed site study of May 1970 incorporated the modified needs and assumptions with mixture of residential and non-residential facilities: A five story apartment building capable of housing 400 students; underground parking and tunnel under University Place; a new university store; infirmary; and retail shops [Figure 2]. The existing university store would potentially be converted to a social facility and McCosh Infirmary could become a residential or social unit. The proposal called for the realignment of University Place so that it would connect with Alexander Road further south and the relocation of the Railroad Station.[29] According to John P. Moran, University General Manager of Planning, Plant and Properties,
The architects have used the development as an opportunity to give form and excitement to a now amorphous area. They intend the development to create a frame for a park consisting of the lands south of McCarter Theater and between Pyne Hall and New South. At the same time the low curved wall of the easterly facade of the development in juxtaposition to New South will form an inviting gateway to the university and the community. The development itself will provide an opportunity for a mixture of residential and non-residential activity around a community plaza giving life to the area.[30]Although the Trustee Committee on Grounds and Buildings carefully considered and approved the plan in principle, the Pei plan was never implemented. In a Department of Public Information news release, in March of 1971, President Goheen declared that the university would not go ahead with the southwest plan because it could not afford the initial capital cost and continuing operating costs. However, Goheen noted planning would go forward for a new housing program.[31]
In September of 1971, the Grounds and Buildings Committee of the Board of Trustees approved I.M. Pei and Partners' plans for a residential complex to accommodate the expanded student body associated with coeducation.[32] I.M. Pei and Partners developed the design to meet the following objectives:
1) To preserve the topography, openness, and natural wooded landscaping of the site; 2) To further the informal sequence of open space building enclosure, and vista traditional to Princeton, bringing New South into a positive relationship with the Campus, and strengthening the link extending to the Princeton Inn Area; 3) To promote the meeting of students and foster a spirit of community without sacrificing the requisites for privacy and individual sense of place.[33]Therefore, the design met the demand for student apartments and provided an alternative to formal dining arrangements on campus. According to the architect's model, the buildings would be arranged on a diagonal axis leading from Princeton Inn College toward campus, connecting the former hotel to the rest of the University [Figures 3-6]. The design would also respect existing pedestrian routes. According to John P. Moran, General Manager of Planning, Plant and Properties for the University, the majority of the trees in the wooded area would be preserved. A special landscape fund would move several pine trees and replace other trees which were moved by the construction.[34]
According to Harold Fredenburgh, the senior associate at I.M. Pei and Partners who led the project, the architects chose concrete as the primary construction material because it was adaptable and compatible with stone and brick on campus, especially the lighter, ubiquitous limestone trim. Le Messurier Associates of New York were the project's structural engineers and Lewis C. Bowers and sons of Princeton were the builders.[35] Nine hundred and seventy-nine precast concrete slabs, weighing up to 38,000 pounds were made in a factory in Bond Brook and used flat and on edge to form walls, floors, and roofs. The self-supporting slabs were reinforced with imbedded steel rods and some were postressed by threading cables through tubes running the length of the members. The cables were then pulled taut and bolted in order to permanently maintain the tension. This system of construction reduced the construction time required to complete the project from two years to thirteen months, making it possible for students to occupy the halls in September of 1973.[36]
The complex incorporates eight houses of three and four stories high. Each right-triangle unit is composed of 58 apartments, each with its own kitchen, bathroom, and living area. The basic living unit is a four-person apartment. Two of the buildings were designed for married students. Each house has its own entry stairway opening full height of the building and a skylight staircase. The small houses encourage a closer relationship among residents than the feeling of a mass dormitory. Dr. William Marlin, lecturer in Art and Archeology at Princeton described the complex as having,
a medieval quality that makes it a worthy successor to, and a good neighbor of, Princeton's Gothic tradition. It's not easy matter to integrate eight new buildings into a campus so architecturally varied as Princeton, but Pei has done this successfully in an elegant, respectful, and restrained manner.[37]Marlin also praised the preservation of both the pedestrian streets and the campus tradition of open and enclosed spaces. In an article for the Princeton Alumni Weekly, student Kerry North agreed that the buildings served its goal of becoming both a physical and architectural transition piece on campus. Moreover, North claimed that the angular structures silenced those who criticized the "parking garage architecture."[38]
Students moved into Spelman Halls in the fall of 1973. In November, the buildings were dedicated in honor of the grandmother of Laurance S. Rockefeller '32 whose gift of $4 million enabled Princeton to launch its coeducation plan. The buildings memorialized Mrs. Laura Celestia Spelman Rockefeller (1839-1915) and her lifelong concern for providing educational opportunity for women and blacks.[39] Mrs. Rockefeller Sr. came from a staunch abolitionist family. Her high school valedictory address, "I can paddle my own canoe," showed women opportunity and self-reliance and expressed her own sense of freedom and self-confidence. In 1881, she and her husband, Mr. John D. Rockefeller Sr., had a philanthropic role in the establishment of Spelman College for black women. She was a teacher at Hudson Street School in Cleveland and eventually promoted to Assistant Principal. After her marriage, she taught Sunday school and organized music classes.[40] According to the dedication brochure,
The new Spelman Halls at Princeton are dedicated to [Laura Spelman Rockefeller's] belief in equality of opportunity. In the simplicity of their design, they also reflect her quiet taste and fondness for plain dress. But also in their landscaping and originality, they stand for the appreciation she felt for nature's beauty and the trust she had in the creative spirit of humankind.[41]
Given her goals and ideals, it is appropriate that the buildings which commemorate Laura Spelman Rockefeller would be erected to house both women and men at Princeton.
In 1977, the Spelman Halls were named among the winners of the nation's highest awards for design excellence as 11 new building projects termed, "Outstanding architectural achievement" by the AIA. According to William Turbull Jr. of San Francisco, who chaired the six member jury of architects,
The diagonal circulation through these cubist forms follows a geometric relationship to the existing highly ornamented dormitories and the resulting tension between the two systems sets up a special sense of place. The plans are tight but the environment provided is pleasant and continues the tradition of entries and suites in University housing.[42]
The Spelman Halls at Princeton may have inspired the architectural firm's later work. In particular, the East Building of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., completed by I.M. Pei and Partners in 1978, shares some of the same architectural qualities as the Princeton dorms [Figures 7-9]. Pei and Partners subdivided the trapezoidal space into two triangular units, a larger isosceles triangle and a right triangle. A common axis links the older West Wing building with the new East Wing just as its triangular counterparts at Princeton link the new and the old areas of the campus. In both structures, skylights are a unifying force. The third glass triangle ties the East Wings parts together in the same manner that the skylighted entry stairway in the Spelman Halls create a focal point around which each house is organized.[43]
By the time the Class of '73 graduated, there were 1125 women students at Princeton.[44] Planning, creativity, and a little luck enabled Princeton to make the successful transition to a coeducational institution. In turn, the enrollment of women at Princeton influenced architectural and planning choices on campus. Spelman Halls symbolize Princeton's commitment to educational opportunity.
Balestri, Carlo H. "Breaking down barriers: The first four years," The Daily Princetonian, October 11, 1994.
Breese, Gerald. Princeton University Land, 1752-1984. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1986.
Cresap McCormick and Paget, Inc. Management Consultants. An Analysis of the Impact of Coeducation at Princeton University . Princeton University: January 1972, Section V.
Durkee, Robert. "Goheen: 'Coeducation is Inevitable'" The Daily Princetonian, May 17, 1967.
Gender in the Academy: Women and Learning from Plato to Princeton. Princeton University Library: Princeton, NJ, 1990.
Fenton, John M. "Coeducation: An Interim Report," Princeton Alumni Weekly, November 24, 1970.
Folsom, Merrill. "Sarah Lawrence Declines Merger," New York Times, June 3 1967.
L.Y.J. "Plans for Coeducation: Gift of $4,000,000 Plus Princeton Inn Solves Initial Problems," Princeton Alumni Weekly, May 6 1969.
Leitch, Alexander. A Princeton Companion. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1978.
Marlin, William. "Housing that 'fits' Princeton's Ivy Setting," Christian Science Monitor, June 21, 1974.
Munford, Luther. "Anatomy of a Decision," Princeton Alumni Weekly, December 11, 1969.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Department of Information, November 11, 1968.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, September 29, 1969.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, May 20, 1970.
News Release Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, March 20, 1971.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, September 22, 1971.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, November 19, 1971.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, November 13, 1973.
News Release. Princeton, NJ: Department of Public Information, May 13, 1977.
North, Kerry. "On the Campus," Princeton Alumni Weekly , October 16, 1973.
Patterson, Gardner. The Education of women at Princeton: a special report, a report on the desirability and feasibility of Princeton entering significantly into the education of women at the undergraduate level. Princeton: Princeton University, 1968.
I.M. Pei and Partners. I.M. Pei/SD. (Series: Gendai no Kenchikuka). Tokyo: Kajima Shuppankai, 1983.
"Princeton Dorm Design Cited," Trenton Evening Times, November 15, 1974.
Princeton University. Report of a Special Committee at the End of the First Year of Education. A Status Report on Planning for Coeducation at Princeton. September 1970.
Princeton University. The Education of Undergraduate Women at Princeton: an Examination of Coordinate versus Coeducational Patterns, March 1969.
Shinkawa, Tania. Paper for Freshman Seminar 124. Coeducation Comes to Princeton: a long arduous journey, 1994.
Spelman dedication brochure, November 1973.
Suner, Bruno. Ieon Ming Pei. Paris: Hazan, 1988.
Yessios, Dorina. "Overcoming Hurdles: The Decision Process," The Daily Princetonian , October 7 1994.
I also would like to acknowledge Janet Temos for sharing her inventory of oversized architectural displays in Mudd Library with me.