Hertford and Co-Residence
22 October 2024
‘the College would be a more agreeable community if it included women members’
2024 is the year in which we celebrate the 50 years since women were first admitted to Hertford. We were among the first five traditionally male colleges to do so, alongside Wadham, Brasenose, St Catherine’s and Jesus. It is also the year our Emeritus fellow Christopher Tyerman, has completed his book on Hertford’s History. Within its pages he reveals the steps leading up to the monumental change. Below is an excerpt from his book, charting the journey toward becoming co-residential.
‘A joint committee on the admission of women was established in March 1969 comprising three fellows, Alan Day, Richard Malpas and Neil Tanner, and two junior members, E.L. Kilty and D.D. Malvern. They reported in June recommending the statutes be amended. The committee acknowledged that the change might alienate old members on whose generosity the college depended, but suggested this difficulty could be mitigated by prior consultation. While recognising that any moves to co-residence would be unpopular with women’s colleges, the committee argued against delay lest other men’s colleges stole a march. The senior members of the committee agreed with the JCR representatives ‘that the College would be a more agreeable community if it included women members’. However, they admitted that such considerations would be unlikely to sway those with ‘contrary views’. At no point did the report emphasise the principle of gender equity. Rather its pitch was to self-interest, in tune with the general tenor of the new Hertford admissions scheme begun in 1965: ‘The special case for Hertford’s admitting women is that its academic standard amongst men’s colleges is relatively low. Consequently, it now admits a relatively high proportion of male junior members of lesser merit than women who would like, but are at present unable, to come to Oxford.[1]
The committee’s awareness of possible opposition (‘contrary views’) was well founded. In June 1969 the Governing Body merely acknowledged receipt of the report. No action was taken. After the long vacation, in late October it was decided to defer consideration of the report’s recommendation to ‘when the College statutes were next revised’, i.e. the long grass. Different aspects of the proposed change elicited different negative reactions: conservatives disliked or feared change; misogynists disliked or feared women; pragmatists worried about accommodation, costs and the opinion of old members; even the broadminded might worry at the impact on women’s colleges and be sensitive to their loud objections. The chemistry fellow Keith McLauchlan later characterised the division as between the recently elected and a ‘rump of the Fellowship who had either graduated in Oxford themselves or had long been members of a Male College’. [2] This may be an oversimplification. While Felix Markham and John Armstrong could be expected to resist, another slightly less old Oxford hand Miles Vaughan Williams was in favour of change. The voting patterns imply that not all those elected in the 1960s, however open to ‘equality of opportunity’ [3], were gung ho. The ‘rump’ included the cautious as well as the conservative. Equally, whatever his private sentiment, Markham, forced as Acting Principal during the interregnum between the death of Principal Brown in February 1971 and the arrival of Principal Warnock late the following December to preside over much of the subsequent discussions, while happy to pursue Fabian tactics, was punctilious in abiding by majority opinion.[4]
In October and November 1970 two initiatives, by Queen’s and Wadham, had reopened the issue. Hertford decided to participate in general discussions. [5] A full meeting of colleges on 3 December 1970 led to a working party to devise a detailed scheme for co-residence comprising those colleges actively considering it. However, at this point, Hertford backed off, declining to join the working party, merely asking to be kept informed, a position reiterated in January 1971.Tanner made clear his view of this by insisting his dissent be recorded in the GB minutes. [6] Tanner and other reformers saw co-residence as a natural extension of the college policies of open access and raising standards. However, despite this foot-dragging, the college did agree to covert steps towards admitting women. In October 1970 it was decided women reading for a PGCE could became associate members of the MCR and, on Tanner’s nomination, Mary Gillan, a lecturer in Physics, was granted SCR dining rights. [7]
Hertford’s decision in December/January 1970/1 to stand aside avoided unnecessary commitment before the substantive proposals emerged from the working party. The death of Lindor Brown in February 1971 further complicated the process of decision. Once the university working party reported in April 1971, it became a matter of whether the college should maintain its neutrality or reach a view before the appointment of a new Principal. Markham clearly favoured the former, suggesting in May 1971 that no decision need be made until the working party’s scheme had been approved by Council and Congregation, a process liable to take many months (it took a year). He argued it be ‘unfair and impracticable to take a view before we have a Principal appointed’ and suggested that Principalian candidates should be told the college had ‘an open mind’. [8] While the first point was sound, and was in fact adopted, the second was both untrue and untenable. Concurrent with the search for a new Principal, in a straw poll in early October 1971 the college indicted there in fact existed a two thirds majority for changing the statutes and for pursuing the co-residence proposals of the inter-collegiate working party, Hertford joining New College, BNC, Wadham, Jesus and St Catz. in taking the plans further. [9] The irony of the college within days choosing a co-residence sceptic as Principal was unmissable: just weeks before his appointment Geoffrey Warnock had voted against his college, Magdalen, admitting women. [10]
The co-residence timetable did not stop for Hertford. By December 1971 it became clear that the college would have to decide early in the following Hilary Term between three options: a) defer a vote; b) agree to change the statutes but drop out of the first wave of co-residence; or c) go ahead with a view to admitting women on the exam in December 1973 for matriculation in October 1974. [11] In a private covering note to Warnock, now Principal but ill with pneumonia, Markham presented arguments in favour of a) and b) including the risk of offending old members and the possible shortage of rooms in 1974 because of building work in the Holywell Quad. He also raised the possibility that if the college chose c) Hebdomadal Council may not give permission, their approval of any statute change being constitutionally necessary. [12] Warnock seems to have taken Markham’s steer.
Despite disagreements, the college was moving in one direction. In December 1971women associate members of the MCR were permitted to lunch and dine with other junior members in hall. [13] Informal meetings of fellows consolidated views and on 2 February 1972 the Governing Body agreed to change the statutes. [14] Prior to the crucial next meeting due on 16 February to decide whether or not to join the first wave of co-residence, Warnock circulated a paper making his view clear. After listing some of the unwelcome restrictions in the proposed scheme, he strongly advocated delay:
‘It is a matter…for very serious consideration whether the present scheme offers enough to be a tempting proposition at this stage….. In a matter of such fundamental College policy short-run considerations must be heavily discounted, and in any case they probably do not amount to much. There would clearly be no short-run positive disadvantages to the College in simply withdrawing from the ‘interested’ group at this stage; the short-run advantages of pioneering, with the charms of novelty and perhaps publicity, would be short-run indeed…. if – as those who favour the principle of co-residence presumably hope-the present highly tentative scheme should develop into a much more real and open movement towards non-discrimination between men and women in the University, then co-residence would be an open option at any time….. we should weigh the possible advantages of allowing other Colleges to venture on this tentative experiment, and of waiting to see how it turns out, and what it turns into’. [15]
This was Markham’s option b) with a vengeance. On 16 February, Warnock’s delay was rejected by a majority although he won the concession that this agreement was on the principle of the scheme only. The college would seek to renegotiate some of the details, while avoiding setting any preconditions. [16] In the event no negotiations were possible or concessions granted so when the issue returned to the Governing Body on 11 March the scheme was as it had been on 16 February. For any who had doubts as to Warnock’s preference, his note for this meeting left no room: ‘Our decision must be simply to join the group on those terms, or not. I would venture to repeat my previous observation that it is a matter for serious consideration whether the scheme offers enough to be a tempting proposition’.[17] By 11 votes to 7 the Governing Body thought it did.
The margin was narrower compared with successive votes on the principle and changing the statutes.[18] However, it was decisive. Warnock and the minority accepted it without public demur. Once Hebdomadal Council, in April, and Congregation, in May, had approved, Hertford, with BNC, Jesus, Wadham and St Catz (New College having dropped out) could proceed.[19] The plan limited the total number of women to be admitted by these colleges to 100 distributed in proportion to each college’s total number of undergraduates.[20] Following a pointed intervention from the redoubtable Mary Bennett, Principal of St Hilda’s, women applicants were not to be eligible for the Hertford matriculation offers.[21] (They were from 1976.) The scheme was to begin with the admissions round of 1973 for entry in 1974. In that first admissions round of 1973-4, Hertford found itself the least popular of the five pioneers, with just 25 first choice women applicants (BNC 45; St Catz 59; Jesus 69; Wadham 77). English (6) then PPE (5) were the most popular subjects. From these and the pool, the college selected 17 women out of a total entry of 78, including two awards, a Scholarship in Biochemistry (Katherine Stross from Millfield) and an Exhibition in Geography (Mary Francis from Marlborough), both of whom came from mixed public school sixth forms. The overall academic standard was patronisingly described as ‘generally promising’. [22]
(The book then proceeds to describe and assess the subsequent integration of women into every aspect of college life over the following half century. The majority of Hertford undergraduates are now women. )
[1] Hertford College Archives (hereafter HCA) 34/2/9 Report of Joint Committee 18 June 1969, wrongly filed GB 71/M1; Governing Body Minutes (hereafter GBM) 15 March, 21 June 1969.
[2] Quoted Malkiel, Keep the Damned Women Out, (Princeton 2016)pp. 573.
[3] Torrance’s formula, Malkiel, loc cit..
[4] Markham was also Acting Principal in Hilary 1970 as well as for the whole of 1971; for his scrupulous conduct of the matter, HCA 34/2/9; GBM 2 Feb 1972
[5] HCA GBM 10 Oct 1970
[6] HCA GBM 5 Dec 1970; 16 Jan 1971; Malpas had been the college’s representative at the Queen’s meeting.
[7] HCA GBM 11 Nov, 5 Dec 1970, 13 March 1971.
[8] HCA 34/2/9 Markham MS note to ‘Richard’ (Malpas) 20 May 1971
[9] HCA GBM 9 Nov, 4 Dec 1971; 34/2/9 report 12 Dec 1971 reviewing the events of the previous two months; Malkiel, Keep the Damned Women Out, pp. 568 and n. 103 and 571.
[10] L. Brockliss, Magdalen College (Oxford 2008), p. 785 note 151; Warnock’s wife Mary was a strong defender of the interests of women’s colleges during these debates.
[11] HCA GB72/H1; 34/2/9 21 Dec 1971, Draft Minutes of the inter-collegiate meeting of 12 Dec 1971
[12] HCA 34/2/9 27 Dec 1971 Markham to Warnock, covering note to Draft Minutes of 12 Dec meeting.
[13] HCA 4 Dec 1971; after the Privy Council approved the statute change in 1973 five women proposing to read for Certificates of Education were allowed to be admitted as full MCR members; GBM 17 March 1973
[14] HCA GBM 2 Feb 1972; Malkiel, Keep the Damned Women Out, p. 573. The statutes were amended and finally approved by the Privy Council 19 Jan 1973; HCA 3/2/19
[15] HCA GB 72/H5; 34/2/9 ‘Co-residence’;
[16] HCA GBM 16 Feb 1972
[17] HCA GB 72/H9;34/2/9 Warnock to Alan Day 28 Feb 1972
[18] A familiar story across Oxford.
[19] Malkiel, Keep the Damned Women Out, pp, 578-80
[20] HCA GB 72/H4 for details, including a series of restrictions over giving awards, devices to stop poaching etc.
[21] HCA 34/2/9, college replies to the co-residence proposals, Feb 1972
[22] Hertford College Magazine, lxi (1974), p. 4.