Garrett Experiment
This report submitted to the Board of Trustees describes the first year of the Garrett Coed Residence Hall experiment. This and other reports may be found in the records of the Board of Trustees, Record Group CH1000, Series 1, Meeting Minutes File, 1908-present in the University Archives. This report is found in Volume 6, page 227, April 23, 1974 meetin
Dr. Tucker recognized Miss Carolyn Fulghum, Associate Dean of Women.Miss Fulghum called on Miss Sherry Duffsinger and Mr. Bill Byrd, both students residing in Garrett Dormitory (coed), for a report as follows.
The East Carolina University coed residence hall was established in 1973 with the East Wing of Garrett hall being assigned to men, and the West Wing to women. The hall averaged housing two hundred students per quarter, and capacity is three hundred residents. Areas used in common by men and women residents included a main lobby, three social rooms, one on each floor, basement recreation and study area, and a suncourt. Open house hours were observed between floors as stipulated by University policy. In addition, educational, recreational, social and entertainment functions were sponsored by thehall to offer opportunities for residents to interact. The "coedness" of the hall was much more apparent in the common social areas of the building as opposed to residents remaining their room.
The House Council of Garrett sponsored this evaluation study based on questionnaires and comparative observation. The questionnaires were also distributed in Fletcher, an all-women-upperclassman hall, and to upperclass men residing in Aycock Hall. Comparisons were based on the number of programs presented, and participation levels, furnished by University personnel working in Fletcher and Aycock Halls. There were one hundred and four (104) students participating in the random sample in Garrett Hall, and one hundered and twenty (120) students participating in Fletcher and Aycock.
Although the mood of a residence hall may vary somewhat from day to day and quarter to quarter, there is often a prevailing climate that makes each living unit unique and yet predictable. The evaluation team in this study looked at the coed hall from as many vantage points as possible.
After considerable discussion, on motion of K. Edward Greene and seconded by Andrew A. Best, the Board of Trustees voted to continue the coed dormitory program for another year, with a report to be made to the Board members at its spring meeting, and with parental consent for the student to live in a coed dormitory.
