Local Op - Ed "Time for women's colleges to go coed"

[BlissfulShadow]

Hey everyone, my friend just emailed me this from the Daily Hampshire Gazette. Most of my friends are fuming about it! I was wondering what you all think of the article, and if you've gotten reactions like this before... Also what
did you find really empowering and beneficial about going to an all women's college?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for women's colleges to go coed
by William L. Pohl,a freelance writer who lives in Belchertown.

When it comes to social reform, America continues to evolve.

In 2009 we elected our first black president, legalized same-sex
marriages in several states, and re-examined everything from health care
to immigration. It's been four decades since the Supreme Court struck
down segregation, relying on evidence that racially separate schools
were inherently unequal. Today's Constitution and civil-rights statutes
prohibit the state from discriminating on the basis of race or sex.

One thing that hasn't changed much, however, are the last remaining
single-sex colleges like Smith and Mount Holyoke.

True, 150 years ago when women were excluded from male academies,
colleges and universities, affirmative action was needed to create these
special schools. We owe a debt of gratitude to women's colleges for
taking an early stand to fight discrimination, raise awareness of gender
issues, and crack the glass ceiling in government, business and even
academia itself.

But today, schools like Smith and Mount Holyoke, Wellesley and Mills,
are hypocritical in their fight against gender discrimination since they
are among the few remaining U.S. institutions allowed to exploit a
federal loophole that permits them to segregate their own admissions on
the basis of sex.

Starting in the 1960s, private male U.S. colleges and universities
voluntarily went coed to keep up with a changing society. Today Harvard
is fully integrated and presided over by its first female president,
Drew Gilpin Faust. Ruth J. Simmons, a black woman and former president
of Smith, heads Brown. And Dartmouth, spoofed in "Animal House" for its
frat boy misogyny, opened its doors to women in 1972. Rather than
weakening these institutions, coeducation made them stronger and better
able to prepare leaders for the modern world.

Even peers of Smith and Mount Holyoke reconsidered single-sex education
long ago. Sarah Lawrence went coed in 1968 to "take risks, and go
against the grain ¿ intellectually, emotionally, artistically and
politically." Vassar followed suit in 1969, "in defiance of conventional
wisdom." Wheaton in Massachusetts accepted men in 1987, "out of a
commitment for equality and diversity for all." One has to believe that
these schools were run by rational and intelligent people who carefully
considered the pros and cons of single-sex education before rejecting a
century of tradition.

To fight declining interest in women's colleges ¿ they're down from 300
in the 1960s to about 60 today - Smith and others are recruiting young
women from the Middle East, according to The New York Times.
Predictably, school officials tout their many distinguished alumnae. But
again, are single-sex schools the best ambassadors to call on nations
like Dubai that repress women? Wouldn't it be better for foreign
students to matriculate at coed schools that share mainstream American
values, and that do not subtly condescend towards the other half of
humanity strictly on the basis of sex?

Women's colleges also tout that they provide a choice in the
marketplace. Maybe, but the private Augusta National Golf Club in
Georgia makes a similar argument as to why it restricts membership and
the Master's tournament to men only. Both institutions may be legal but
being stuck in their sexist ways doesn't make them right.

Nor is there empirical evidence that today's young women do better in
the classroom when set apart from more aggressive and assertive males.
This might have been true in the past but it's not true now, according
to Wendy Kaimer, a women's issues expert. Today's women are thriving at
coed colleges
and in their careers.

Perhaps the most hypocritical myth is that these colleges exist for
women. Look behind the scenes and you'll discover that schools like
Smith and Mount Holyoke haven't been all-female for decades. Thanks to
Five College cross-registration and exchanges like MIT-Wellesley, there
are men on campus everywhere: in the classroom, among the faculty and
administration, even informally in dorms.

To base your brand on being a school run for women is disingenuous. If
you truly believe in single-sex education, either return to the 1950s
and bar male students at the door (a silly non-solution) or stop
deluding yourselves and go coed. And don't worry. Institutions like
Vassar discovered that their endowment had far more to fear from Wall
Street than from old-school alumnae who threaten to stop donating.

Finally, the messages on Smith's website show how intellectually
dishonest the marketing rhetoric at these schools can get. For example:
"At Smith, women are the focus of all the attention and all the
opportunities." How does that make Peter feel after taking the bus from
UMass to Northampton to attend a biochemistry class? "At Smith all the
leaders are women." What signal does this send to the second class
citizen men who are Smith department heads or who work with President
Carol Christ in administration? "At Smith, the ¿old boys' network
becomes an ¿ageless women's network.'" Smith should practice what it
preaches in diversity class. This is sexism, pure and simple, and in a
recession, smart people do not limit their network to one sex.

"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free,"
says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges
embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the
exclusive 19th.

[SpringFlowers]

One man's opinion. He's entitled to it; and I don't care what he thinks.


The End.

[huzzah!]

Willie seemed to have missed the point - it's not about keeping men OUT, as if we think they're crazed sub-humans who are going to rob us of our opportunities in life. It's about having a supportive environment for women. I'm sure there are lots of young women out there who feel adequately supported in a co-ed environment, and I'm REALLY happy that that is the case, as it wasn't the case for the vast majority of women in the 70's. Previously male schools may have "opened their doors," but that's not the same as being fully supportive.

I went to a private high school that had "opened its doors" to women in '75, and despite all its efforts to make girls feel like they really belonged, even 25 years after co-education I still felt like I was a "lucky" visitor to the good-old-boys' club. All the portraits of famous alums and headmasters and teachers were of men. When we were constantly celebrating the school's "diversity" and its history of co-education, I was constantly reminded that for the first two hundred years of the school's existence, I would not have been welcome. When a girl did something exceptional, it was often pointed out that she was a girl -- for example, our class president was continually praised as "Only the second female class president the school has ever had." Sure that made her feel like she really belonged. When one of our girls' sports teams won an international championship, all the celebratory articles in the school paper talked about "these exceptional female athletes" and how "these young women are an example to female athletes everywhere." It was a frickin softball team, everyone already knew they were girls -- why it had to be pointed out, and why they weren't an example to ALL athletes everywhere, was never clear to me.

I liked Smith because my femininity wasn't an issue - I wasn't made to feel like I was extra lucky to have been given a spot my grandmother would have been denied; I wasn't made to feel like if I did something exceptional, it was worth noting that I am a woman. Perhaps counter-intuitively, by being at a women's college, I felt like my gender was a non-issue for the first time in my life.

[la katrina]

Willie seemed to have missed the point - it's not about keeping men OUT, as if we think they're crazed sub-humans who are going to rob us of our opportunities in life. It's about having a supportive environment for women.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, by being at a women's college, I felt like my gender was a non-issue for the first time in my life.

THIS. Thanks, you really articulated what I found so valuable in an all-women's institution.

[Miranda]

There was a response in the Daily Hampshire Gazette this weekend-- 5 people wrote their opinions about the pros of a womens college.

However, the original opinion saying a women's college is sexist reminded me of a lawsuit recently in the NYTimes where a man sued a school saying there should be a Mens' Studies major, since there is a Women's Studies major. WTF. The reason there is Women's Studies is that basically everything we study is White Men's Studies. Grrrr. My sib went to an Ivy, and from the stories I hear, I am so, so grateful I went to Smith. The guys at my sibs school can be so cocky, they hold all the leadership positions (class president, Editor-In-Chief, etc.), they make misogynistic remarks... the sorority rush hazing was terrifying (apparently one year, they blindfolded the pledges and made them suck on bananas, and since they were blindfolded they had no idea what was really going on... I kidd you not, I was so horrified). I'm just so happy I went to Smith.

[upsidown]

This is the most ridiculous, stupid article ever. This article is the REASON we still need women's colleges!

Talk about not getting it... he didn't even get CLOSE to getting it.

[LadyRed]

To fight declining interest in women's colleges ¿ they're down from 300
in the 1960s to about 60 today - Smith and others are recruiting young
women from the Middle East, according to The New York Times.
Predictably, school officials tout their many distinguished alumnae. But
again, are single-sex schools the best ambassadors to call on nations
like Dubai that repress women? Wouldn't it be better for foreign
students to matriculate at coed schools that share mainstream American
values, and that do not subtly condescend towards the other half of
humanity strictly on the basis of sex?

Who the fuck is this toolbag to decide how it would be better for foreign students to matriculate at coed schools? Does he realize those Middle Eastern daddies are NEVER going to send their daughters to a coed school in the US of A? What a fucking moron.

Nor is there empirical evidence that today's young women do better in
the classroom when set apart from more aggressive and assertive males.
This might have been true in the past but it's not true now, according
to Wendy Kaimer, a women's issues expert. Today's women are thriving at
coed colleges
and in their careers.

Bullshit, plain and simple.

To base your brand on being a school run for women is disingenuous. If
you truly believe in single-sex education, either return to the 1950s
and bar male students at the door (a silly non-solution) or stop
deluding yourselves and go coed. And don't worry. Institutions like
Vassar discovered that their endowment had far more to fear from Wall
Street than from old-school alumnae who threaten to stop donating.

Extremist arguments do nothing to help his case.

Finally, the messages on Smith's website show how intellectually
dishonest the marketing rhetoric at these schools can get. For example:
"At Smith, women are the focus of all the attention and all the
opportunities." How does that make Peter feel after taking the bus from
UMass to Northampton to attend a biochemistry class? "At Smith all the
leaders are women." What signal does this send to the second class
citizen men who are Smith department heads or who work with President
Carol Christ in administration? "At Smith, the ¿old boys' network
becomes an ¿ageless women's network.'" Smith should practice what it
preaches in diversity class. This is sexism, pure and simple, and in a
recession, smart people do not limit their network to one sex.

This guy is just...REACHING. HE IS A MORON BIGPIGMAN.

Willie seemed to have missed the point - it's not about keeping men OUT, as if we think they're crazed sub-humans who are going to rob us of our opportunities in life. It's about having a supportive environment for women.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, by being at a women's college, I felt like my gender was a non-issue for the first time in my life.

THIS. Thanks, you really articulated what I found so valuable in an all-women's institution.

AGREE.

[upsidown]

This woman's a Smithie! What do you think-- out of context quote or does she agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Kaminer

"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free,"
says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges
embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the
exclusive 19th.

[upsidown]

Oh wait, is this the same person? If so, he misspelled her name! I can't find any Wendy Kaimer out there...

This woman's a Smithie! What do you think-- out of context quote or does she agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Kaminer

"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free,"
says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges
embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the
exclusive 19th.

[LadyRed]

Oh wait, is this the same person? If so, he misspelled her name! I can't find any Wendy Kaimer out there...

This woman's a Smithie! What do you think-- out of context quote or does she agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Kaminer

"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free,"
says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges
embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the
exclusive 19th.

He misspelled her name because he wrote that piece of filke to piss people off and get them to write opinions to the paper, and probably did little to no research.

[aannichiarico]

Although I can see the author's point, he is missing the point that variety is a good thing. It's great that men and women can be educated equally, but just because men and women can spend time together as equals doesn't mean that they shouldn't associate with their own sex exclusively from time to time. I think this includes education. Smith, Mt. Holyoke and others are private institutions. They can do whatever they want. And if they believe that what is best for women is for them to be educated in an environment where they are the majority and their interests are the priority, they can do that. It's okay for men to do that too. As long as we have good educational institutions that are coed, to give those who prefer coed the opportunity, then what is wrong with having exclusive institutions for those who prefer such a setting? As long as no one is being left out. And as the author stated (one thing which was correct), there are ways that men can attend Smith, through college exchange and graduate programs. Smith also recognizes the experience and achievements of it's talented male faculty members and staff by employing them. Smith does not uphold the view that women are stronger than men or more skilled or smart or whatever. Only that an institution made for and by women is a tool inwhich they can be empowered to change themselves and the world.