Too often, the library is taken for granted in reports on educational policy in one area or another. Some of the recommendations in this report assume a collection of books and other material on the issues of sexuality, yet these would not normally be in a "standard" college library collection. Basic psychology texts such as Freud, Erikson, and Horney are standard, as are anthropological works such as Margaret Mead's and sociology primers including J. S. Mill, Parsons, Riesman, Ginzberg, and the like. Yet a librarian would have to make a conscious decision to enlarge parts of his collection in order to feed concentrated study on the psychology, sociology, and other faces of sexuality. Literature about the early feminist movement in 7nerica would be particularly hard to acquire. However, in this, Hampshire is fortunate to have Smith and Mount Holyoke nearby, for these colleges each have special collections of feminist material. Indeed, they might welcome their greater use. Enleagued, Hampshire might be responsible for buying recent materials such as psychological studies, feminist periodicals, Women's Bureau reports, papers from other colleges on coeducation, Radcliffe Institute publications, and writings by selected contemporary women scholars; while Smith and Mount Holyoke might supply older texts, documents relating to UN efforts for human rights, and international feminist movement publications.
These are merely suggestions, of course. All the Valley librarians naturally have alliances much in their minds, and a partnership in the area mentioned here would have to fit in with several others.
--The Hampshire librarian should be aware of the needs for material dealing with the issues of sexuality. He should begin to enlarge his collection in this area with a definite budget allocation. He should learn about his neighbors' resources in this subject-area and should develop Hampshire's in coordination with theirs.
The common ratio at both coordinate and coeducational colleges is 60:40::men:women. This has happened more out of convenience than intention, and seems comfortable to many. Since Hampshire has the chance to make its own decision, however, it should recognize two principal issues.
There is no reason to accept more men than women. In fact, this practice is usually a detriment at coeducational colleges. All of them have more female applicants than male. They can be doubly selective with the females, therefore, with the result that their women are better qualified than their men, causing both sexes some malaise.
About the only argument actively made for the 60:40 ratio is that it is good for dating. This argument seems ridiculous for Hampshire to consider. it assumes just those stereotyped roles Hampshire wants to place at issue by taking coeducation seriously, and at the same time helps to perpetuate them. It does not take into account the students' sophistication. It does not apply to the Valley environment: there are two women's colleges nearby, certainly, but the Valley ratio includes the greater numbers of men at the University of Massachusetts.
Perhaps, though, the dating argument really disguises an opinion that it is somehow more worthwhile to educate men than women. This is a more serious argument, but it, too, is merely
a self-fulfilling prophecy that needs challenging, in fact, demands challenging if Hampshire is to be thorough in its approach to coeducation. Women have always had less access to liberal arts college s than men. Although the men's colleges that are accepting women must honor tradition by preserving this particular inequity, Hampshire, as a new college, can start with no strings attached to its sex ratio.
--Hampshire should try to approximate equality in its sex ratio, 50:50. There will usually be an imbalance, of course, owing to the uncertainties of the admissions process; in the interests of evening its students' qualifications, then, and recognizing the fewer places for women in other colleges, Hampshire should err on the side of accepting more women.
Anything below a 75:25 ratio actually is worse than separate education. Many educators have testified to this, Mary Bunting, Radcliffe's president, perhaps most clamorously, since Radcliffe girls form only 20% of Harvard's undergraduates. Stanford, too, has a low ratio of women to men that is troublesome: 30:70. The difficulties would be the same, of course, with a low ratio of men to women, just as they are with the low ratio of blacks to whites. Having so few of one group over-all at a college means that there will be only one or two in many classes, and these will tend to leave the class to the majority. Also, the majority
does not have the chance to see and work with the others very much and so cannot form reasonable opinions about them. Social pressures seesaw, those in small numbers have no privacy, and ballasting maneuvers become unwieldy. Interestingly, Princeton, Vassar, and Yale, which now plan coeducation, have decided to avoid a final ratio lower than 66:33 but are all going through transitions with much lower ratios. Whether or not their transition periods offer them a fair test of coeducation, therefore, is questionable.
--Hampshire should keep within the limits of 50:50-33:66:: men:women.
The Princeton report, op. cit., pp. 21-23 has an excellent section on the sex-ratio problem, although it goes into many more factors than Hampshire needs to do.
Cass and Birnbaum, Comparative Guide to American Colleges (1968-69 ed.; New York: Harper and Row), gives sex-ratio figures for selected colleges and universities.
Although the fact that a number of men's colleges are now going coeducational will mean more places for women in absolute numbers, the unequal proportion of men to women attending colleges will not change.
Right now, an interesting case is going on in a Richmond Federal court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has charged that the University of Virginia discriminates against women in its admissions program. The University planned to admit women to its all-male college of arts and sciences by September, 1970, but the ACLU feels that there has been unreasonable delay and, also, that there is no guarantee that discrimination would end in all phases of admissions without a court order. The decision in this case may affect sex ratios in many other State colleges.
Whether Hampshire presents itself in a talking catalogue, a videotape, or an old-fashioned piece of paper, it should mention the principles behind educating men and women together. Most catalogues for coeducational colleges do not do this. Instead, they mention only the principles behind educating individuals. While these, of course, are the most important principles, they should not be arrived at without mentioning others. Individuality is not so simple. Oberlin's catalogue, for instance, includes a model statement. It speaks of the college's "belief in the right of all qualified students, regardless of sex, color or circumstance, to those opportunities for personal growth which a liberal education provides." Hampshire's catalogue might have, in addition, a sentence such as this: "Hampshire believes that all students, black and white, male and female, of whatever religious or political creed, can learn most about themselves in an environment where open and personal discussion helps them to look beyond group characteristics to personal identity."
--Hampshire should make some statement including the principles of equal rights to opportunity and free choice of roles in its regular publicity.
There are many characteristics that Hampshire will look for in its applicants, all of which are important. Usually, eagerness, fancy, friendliness, lucidity, and the like all count toward admission, along with a student's grades. From the point of view of coeducation, however, there is one characteristic that ought to be as important as any of the others, and that is a student's ability to contribute to, and gain from, Hampshire's ongoing concern with the issues of sexuality. As Kenneth Keniston points out, an institution's interests must depend on its students: "image" comes more from the students than from the college catalogue, and only if the students create in their own culture the "image" that Hampshire takes coeducation seriously will it be so. However, it will be much harder to find students who will enter into Hampshire's coeducational aims than it will be to find ones who will participate in its innovational or developmental schemes. No one has set out particularly to find such students, and so there are no criteria. The following recommendations do not establish criteria, by any means, but they do take a few forward steps.
--Wherever possible, the admissions interview should explore the applicant's reasons for attending a coeducational college. The more sensitive and articulate a student is about the wide
range of arguments for coeducation, and few students are, the more likely it will be that he or she can contribute to Hampshire's ongoing concern with the issues of sexuality.
--Hampshire should aim for students whose ideas of sex roles vary. Students are almost never explicit about this. The only way of guessing their ideas is to know their parents' lives, their extracurricular activities, and their academic interests. For example, a girl whose mother is a doctor and whose father is an artist is liable to have a different view of femininity than a girl whose mother is a housewife and whose father is a banker. A boy whose mother studies geology is liable to have a different view of masculinity than a boy who spent a summer on a geology field trip. Girls who want more than preparation for family life should come to Hampshire along with future mothers and housewives. And Hampshire should have boys who want to prepare for family life too, knowing that men are as much fathers as women are mothers. Girls who want to concentrate in the sciences and boys who want to learn more about languages should be favored on the grounds that their unconventional interests might come to consciousness and stir critiques of stereotypes about sex-linked academic abilities. Over-all, the same reasons for having racial diversity among students apply in favor of sex-role diversity. A variety of
ideas and habits in sex roles hopefully may stimulate discussion and finally encourage diversity commensurate with individual talents.
--Hampshire should admit older men and women as regular students. Of course, accommodation at Hampshire will be useful to such people, but even more important will be their own usefulness to the younger undergraduates. Both men and women students particularly need to see older women who are having to juggle their academic talents with motherhood. The older men can show students that men, too, face readjustments as they go through life, and that for them, too, new choices are possible. Besides serving as models in this way, the older men and women will be helpful in open discussions of sexuality. For one thing, they have much more experience. Frank talk with someone of the opposite sex who is older can be a helpful, often necessary, transition to talking just as frankly with someone one's own age. The older men and women Hampshire admits would have to be full-time students, since their worth depends partly on their being on the campus. "Full-time," of course, is not a literal expression in an academic community, but even so, not many older men or women will be able to apply, so that Hampshire could not possibly over-accept. The college should publicize its search thoroughly and take as many older applicants as it can find.
"Then as far as the guardianship
of a state is concerned, there is no difference between the natures of
the man and of the woman, but only various degrees of weakness and strength.
. . . Then we shall have to select duly qualified women also, to share
in the life and official labours of the duly qualified men; since we find
that they are competent to the work, and of kindred nature with the men."
The Hampshire faculty may be one of the single most important elements in helping men and women learn together most constructively. Not just any faculty will do. Hampshire needs people who are aware of coeducation's special opportunities and want to use them. They must be willing to talk with students about subjects that to others may seem embarrassing. They must be open-minded about an individual's choice of sex role, just as they must be open-minded about ideas. They must be self-conscious about their own way of incorporating individuality with sexuality in order to share a sense of care in such choices with their students. Faculty who normally apply to coeducational colleges do not necessarily have these qualities. in fact, they are less likely to have them than faculty applying to separate colleges.
--In hiring faculty, Hampshire should consider their motivation and ability to deal with the issues of sexuality. This recommendation will be hard to effect, both because most applicants will not have the qualifications mentioned above and because there are few ways to measure them. Thus, Hampshire must constantly prompt its faculty on the significance it gives to coeducation.
--The Dean of the Faculty should meet annually with the faculty to talk with them about their attention to the issues of sexuality in their classes and their counseling. The Dean cannot intend to govern exactly how and what his faculty teach; but he can and should intend to instruct his faculty to include the dimension of value over and above the dimensions of logic and information in their teaching. No faculty member nowadays would disagree. Few, however, remember that sexuality falls into that value dimension along with the more familiar values of Truth, Integrity, Mortality, and others. This is the point needing emphasis from the Dean.
--There should be a Committee on Coeducation to support faculty responsibility in this area. This committee, with full representation from both sexes and all divisions, should monitor
Hampshire's educational policies with respect to coeducation, as discussed in major sections of this report. In this committee, the faculty could discuss exactly how to incorporate materials relevant to sexuality in their classes; they could also entertain student suggestions. To give one example: a professor in a respected coeducational college has taught a seminar in autobiography for several years that includes no female autobiographers. Any literary scholar will say that there are several books by female autobiographers which ought to have been included solely on literary grounds. The point here is, however, that the professor should have known that a comparison between autobiographical works by men and women would have been a valuable, self-revealing exercise for his students. If his colleagues or students had told him this, no doubt he would have agreed;' as it was, lie stayed unaware. A Committee on Coeducation might have helped him. Some faculty members are not only unaware but ignorant of women's contributions in their field, though this is more true in certain disciplines than others. A Committee on Coeducation would also help them. Some faculty simply need to discuss the appropriateness of certain student reflexes to the issues of sexuality. A Committee on Coeducation would also help them. In the Hampshire hierarchy, this committee would be a sub-committee to the Curriculum Committee or its equivalent, whatever Hampshire has. It
would contribute to, but not determine, larger issues of educational policy. Probably, it would parallel the Committee on Human Development, although it is not even clear yet where the latter fits. The Committee on Coeducation might advise certain new courses other than those outlined here; it might make recommendations on faculty hiring. It might write a "white paper" or a bibliography from time to time. It might imagine research projects. It might sponsor seminars once in a while for faculty or students or both. It would play a large part in orientation. Its chairman should consider it his or her job to be aggressive. It should be as conspicuous as any other faculty committee, and as clever, in improving education at Hampshire.
--Hampshire should set out to hire a significant number of women faculty. This is more important than any other recommendation in this report. If Hampshire succeeds at this, then all the other changes will succeed beyond anything possible through mere rhetoric and good intentions.
All educators, researchers, students, men and women alike, all writings and people consulted for this report agree that women faculty serve as role models for young men and women in. college. They do so in exactly the same way as men faculty serve
as role models for both sexes, and the students' need for both is equally great. However, the need has not been met. One psychologist has remarked, "Women are looking agonizingly hard for exemplars who can give them clues to their own lives. They search harder than men, and have a much harder time finding appropriate ones." Although men do not need female paradigms for their own lives, they, too, need to see instances of the needs and life styles of women who might become their friends, colleagues, or wives. As one sample shows, women faculty are simply not available in enough numbers at most colleges. In 1964, only 22% of the faculty and other professional staffs in colleges were women. The proportion was higher in 1940 (28%), in 1930 (27%), in 1920 (26%), and in 1890 (27%). The coeducational colleges have a particular duty to hire substantial numbers of women faculty, since they serve women. The table on the following page shows the percentages of women faculty at selected coeducational colleges and universities.
Number of Faculty
* College of Arts and
These summary statistics show that the coeducational liberal arts colleges are ahead of the universities in hiring women faculty, but that none of the institutions has an adequate number.
This table does not show data that is even more important than the percentage of women faculty: that is, their rank. Colleges, even independent coeducational ones, discriminate against the few women they do hire. They bring them in at the
lowest ranks, as instructors and teaching assistants, and keep them there. Fewer women than men get tenure, and minimal numbers are department heads. Nepotism rules often require that women accept semester-by-semester appointments, a low salary, no voting privileges, and no rank assignment. There is usually a dual pay scale for men and women faculty, justified on the basis that men are primary breadwinners. In 1963-64, the median nine-month salary at colleges and universities was $8,342 for men and ~6,940 for women. While median figures have severe limitations, they do point out discrepancies.
All of this adds up to some skewed feelings on the part of students and faculty alike about women's careers, a failure to capitalize on a real educational opportunity, and perverted scholarly values. It adds up to attitudes such as the one discovered in a notorious study at Connecticut College for Women. Two groups of sophomores were given the same journal article to read and judge. One group's article was signed "John McKay," the other, "Joan McKay." The students thought very well of "John's" article, but poorly of "Joan's."
If challenged to hire more women, the colleges' reflex is to say there are not enough who are qualified.
First, this is only partly true. About 11% of the Ph.D. group each year is female. The number has stayed remarkably
static, fluctuating only between 9% and 11% during the last twenty years. It climbed to 20%, however, during the war years, and the women who earned degrees then are still available now. Reduce this number by a large factor for marriage, since most women Ph.D.'s are married; and by a small number for poor qualifications, since the women who can persevere tend to be well motivated and bright; and it is true that there are only modest numbers of women whom colleges can hire without making any allowances at all. Another minus, of course, is that they may cluster in fields where there are also large numbers of men. Still, in absolute numbers, there are more women available and qualified for the best faculty posts each year than are hired. One bit of evidence for this is that, each year, the Seven Sister Colleges turn down female faculty applicants, not for lack of qualifications but for lack of openings, who do not turn up at other colleges of the same rank. If a college, through especially enlightened hiring policies and good publicity, gets an "image" for hiring women, as several colleges have poor images, word of mouth can pass quickly and women applicants appear from a seemingly vacant field.
The barrier to employment and promotion for women comes at the department chairman's level. The chairmen, inevitably male and generally more conservative than administrators because of
loyalty to their discipline rat-her than to wider educational aims, do not recruit enterprisingly for women or watch for chances to advance them. After a while, this carelessness begets a fierce circle, as women do not apply or even train for faculty positions. chairmen run tight fiefdoms. If an administrator wants to break into this cycle, he can only do it through bribery: approving a departmental budget on condition that the chairman give tenure to a woman, or, in some cases, hire a Negro, has occasionally worked.
The other answer to give those who say there are not enough qualified women is to suggest that their definition of "qualified" needs mending. Alice Rossi, who has written extensively on women in academia, feels this is the most important issue: it applies for both men and women alike; and it certainly is one of the sorest points among administrators nowadays. Their students have asked them to hire faculty who are good teachers, not researchers. They have looked for support in troubled days and found their faculty off at conferences. They have been told that if they want truly creative and committed faculty, they should hire the dropouts from Ph.D. programs. Most of this last group are women.
Over ten years ago, Radcliffe published a report called Graduate Education for Women: The Radcliffe Ph.D. Among other
points, it told the reasons why women publish less than men. It found that women are under less financial pressure to publish; that they have no one to help with the publication chores, as men have their wives; that they have small incentive, since publication does not bring them promotion; that, having to spend more of their non-working hours at home, they gain fewer of the social contacts that so often lead to publication; and that they are assigned heavier teaching loads and more extra duties than men, for when a college has very few women, it uses them on every occasion, exactly as happens with any "token" person in a group: many academic women testify to this. In another important book, Academic Women, Jessie Bernard reports that men tend to write in journals for a public audience, interpreting or applying their academic specialties as "experts," while women tend to publish in journals for their fields, collecting and criticizing ideas to make them more easily presentable to students.
There is no real system of equivalency in academia whereby teaching and administrative work can be esteemed as well as publication; whereby part-time work can be summed in full-time units for tenure consideration; whereby a woman's reading and writing done at home can count as -much as a man's time in the classroom or office. As Elga Wasserman, director of Yale's new coeducational program, suggests, a woman teaching part-time during the week and studying at home in her "off"-time does as
much in the long run. as a man who works for two years and then takes a year's sabbatical. Also, there is no reason a college could not hire two part-time women for one full-time slot; or a woman could be hired to teach one semester and do research during the other. All these points suggest that if colleges were to accept a medley of qualifications and juggle schedules somewhat, they would find many more "qualified" women faculty. They would find more "qualified" male, and perhaps Negro, faculty, too, and this would be all to the good. Hampshire has helped its chances a good deal here, by deciding against tenure.
--Women should form no less than one third of Hampshire's total faculty. They should be brought in at all levels. At least one dean always should be a woman.
It will be hard to find women. it will take more hours, energy, and cash than finding men. The figures in the table above show that one third is a sizable goal. Hampshire would be attempting the unprecedented. However, this section has tried to show that women are there. Not only are they there, but the departures Hampshire might have to make from accepted hiring procedures to get them, along with unusual male faculty, such as artists and excellent Negroes, go right in the direction of its own announced innovational aims. If Hampshire truly wishes to provide the best educational environment for its men and women
together, hiring and promoting woman faculty is one of the most important efforts it can make.
--Hampshire should hire women faculty who have a variety of life styles. The reasons for this recommendation are exactly the same as those made for admitting students with a variety of ideas about sex roles and for admitting older students: Hampshire students deserve many more kinds of models than academia usually offers. For instance, most older women faculty are unmarried and professionally oriented, largely because it was even harder for women to finish graduate school twenty-five years ago than now, and they had to lead a man's life to do it. Younger women faculty, however, are married, usually to men who also teach, sometimes to professional men, sometimes to artists or writers who do not work away from home. Sometimes they have children, sometimes they do not. Women with all these types of life styles should be represented at Hampshire, just as men with different life styles should be. Students can only make real choices about their own lives if they first see all the possibilities.
Hampshire is in a much better position to hire married women faculty than an isolated college would be, since the -whole faculty "pool" in the Valley is large. There are many good arguments for not having wife and husband at the same institution, but the husbands of Hampshire's women faculty can find positions nearby. The effort to hire married pairs in which both work may
be the most tightly wound in red tape of any of Hampshire's projects since it has to do with the other colleges, but, in the end, it may also be one of the most important ways of achieving a real sense of community in the Valley, a commitment to a true "regional university" with public and private units that now seems so distant.
Already, Hampshire has hired about eight planning faculty for next year. Out of these and the deans already on campus, only one is a woman. By the recommendations, at least one dean, one lower-ranked person, and two or three regular planning faculty should be women. Already, then, the college can improve.
2. Women Faculty
I am not alone in finding unanimity on the need to hire more women faculty.
Almost without exception research summaries and recommendations include proposals for increasing female role models in the course of undergraduate education, and in particular, suggest the necessity for colleges to provide women faculty members who exemplify the realities of assuming both the professional and homemaker roles. (Leland and Lozoff, Colleqe Influences on the Role Development of Female Undergraduates, op. cit., p. 5)
The last part of this quotation bears out the third recommendation in my section 2.
Data in the table
comes from American Universities and
sidelight on present inattention to hiring
I have not thoroughly
documented the fact that women are
parallel to women's low position in every other job category, as seen in Labor Department statistics. Any academic person's own experience or any random catalogue check can verify it. The figures I have on median salary come from Ray C. Maul, "More Women as College Teachers," Women's Education, 111, 2 (June, 1964), pp. 2-7. A study on nepotism was done by Rita Simon, Shirley Clark, Laurence Tifft, "Of Nepotism, Marriage and the Pursual of an Academic Career," Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1965. One particularly interesting study is Alan E. Bayer and Helen S. Astin, "Sex Differences in Academic Rank and Salary Among Science Doctorates in Teaching," Journal of Human Resources, 111, 2 (Spring, 1968), pp. 191-200. This shows women in a more favorable position than often recorded, although the small sample did not justify conclusions. The authors make a distinction, though, between the recognition women earn through academic title or position and through salary. Apparently, women in their group more often suffered salary discrimination than discrimination regarding tenure or promotion.
The study at Connecticut College is cited in Token Learning, op. cit., p. 24.
Data on the numbers of women doctorates are in U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (89th edn.7 Washington, D.C., 1968); the Statistical Abstract for earlier
years; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the U.S., 1789-1957 (Washington, D.C.) with its continuation through 1962.
The only case in which students have made the connection between the universities' need for more and better teaching faculty and women was in the Marlene Dixon case at Chicago last year.
Graduate Education for Women: The Radcliffe Ph.D., a Report by a Faculty-Trustee Committee (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1956) .
Academic Women (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964).
An interesting case has
just been decided in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that
the Montgomery, Alabama, school system should be required to fully correct
racial segregation by assuring the same ratio of white to Negro teachers
in each school, about 3:2, as exists in the school system as a whole (The
New York Times, June 3, 1969, p. 18). While this has absolutely no
legal relation to the question of male and female faculty in private colleges,
it shows that a "quota" approach is sometimes justified. There are very
few cases when quality and quantity depend on each other, but the case
with women faculty, as with Negroes, is one of the few.
[END OF CHAPTER 5, SECTIONS