Page 4, November 1984
The Salemite
The Truth About A Women's College
By;
President Thomas V. Lftzenburg
All of us, 1 suppose, have a list of
our favorite questions. At the top
of mine is one the answer to which
I never tire of giving—namely, why
the tradition of the separate
education of women continues to
endure.
The shortest and least useful
uay to answer this question, of
course, is to ask why anyone would
doubt that there should be colleges
for women. While such a response
is very much to the point, it is not
particularly illuminating. That is
to say. there are any number of
reasons why women's colleges
have prevailed—most of which
should be known by those who
care about the education of
women.
That these reasons are not, in
fact, widely known is one very
good explanation why colleges for
women are needed and have
endured. Nan Keohane, President
of Wellesley College, made the
same point more forcefully and
clearly when she said that one of
her "purposes in working at a
women's college" is to help us get
to the point where "baccalaureate
education would not have to be
offered in a single-sex institution."
Noting that she was speaking only
for herself. President Keohane
went on to remark wistfully that
she hoped there would come a time
when she could say with conviction
that "women's colleges are no
longer needed."
But is there, the skeptic persists,
any hard evidence that women's
colleges really are still needed?
While some may not like the
answer, there is evidence aplenty.
Consider, for example, the
following facts recently reported in
The Chronicle of Higher Educa
tion:
• "Women who graduated from
women's colleges between 1975
and 1978 were [anywhere from]
2 to 11 times more likely to go
to medical school" than women
attending coeducational col
leges and universities.
• "Nine women's colleges are
among the top 25 institutions
that, over a 40-year period,
produced the highest percent
age of [women] graduates who
went on to earn doctorates,
even though those nine colleges
represent only a small percent
age" of the more than three
thousand institutions educating
women.
• 'The percentage of students at
women's colleges majoring in
such fields as chemistry,
economics, mathematics, and
physics—subjects that have
traditionally been dominated
by men—is two to three times
the national average for
women".
• "Students attending women's
colleges are more likely to
attain positions of leadership,
to become involved in student
government, to develop high
aspirations, and to persist to
graduation".
These facts have implications—
unhappy as they may be—that also
have been documented. In a 1982
study of the experiences and
attitudes of women at coeduca
tional institutions conducted by
the Association of American
Colleges, researchers discovered
what they called a "chilly class
room climate" that "puts women
students at a significant educa
tional disadvantage." By that they
meant an atmosphere that, as the
Chronicle has put it, "discourages
[women] students from participat
ing in class, prevents them from
seeking help outside the class
room, causes them to drop or even
avoid taking certain classes, and
deflates their career aspirations."
It is, perhaps, a testimony to the
genuine difficulties that women
continue to encounter in pursuing
their education that such "discrim
ination" is more subtle than
blatant. Indeed, few if any
educators would contend that
coeducational institutions inten
tionally discriminate against
women. On the contrary, the
problem is far more serious and
complicated than such an accusa
tion would suggest.
To understand that this is so, we
might come at the central point
from another angle of view. There
are those who argue that far too
many women assume that the lack
of attention and support provided
them by teachers, advisers, and
administrators has to be accepted
as part of the natural order of
things. Embraced in this assump
tion, critics contend, is the curious
if not provocative argument that if
men seem to get preferential
treatment in the classroom and on
the athletic field it is only because
they have earned and, therefore,
deserve it.
If true, this is a disturbing state
of affairs—a closed if not vicious
circle. For how, one might ask, is a
woman to articulate much less
realize her highest expectations if
she entertains the assumption that
her aspirations are unreasonable
and somehow out of order? The
answer to this question may be all
the more troubling if it is put yet
another way. As some proponents
of women's colleges have asked,
where else other than in an
institution dedicated to the
education of women can a woman
properly assume that she will be
taken seriously as a woman? When
the question is cast in precisely this
manner it has a distinct rhetorical
flavor—that is to say, the question
entails its own answer.
We do well, I think, to test the
utility of this question. Perhaps the
most useful way to do so is to ask
another set of questions the
answers to all of which are
obvious. Where, other than in a
women's college, will women earn
all of the academic honors? receive
all of the athletic awards? hold all
of the elected offices? administer
all of the co-curricular activities?
enjoy the undivided attention of all
of their teachers and advisers?
While there is an apparent
fallacy in this line of questioning, it
may be only that—namely, ap
parent rather than real. Here, of
course, the discussion comes full
circle and the hard question must
be faced once again. If, as some
argue, most women do not enjoy
full equality in their educational
endeavors, if they lack for want of
their fair share of recognition, and
if the absence of genuine concern
and support for women has telling
consequences, then what is "real"
about the world of coeducation
and, more importantly,why would
one characterize the environment
of a women's college as "unreal"?
1 know of no more responsible
answer to the latter question than
to say what others have said
before—namely, that for genera
tion upon generation of excep
tionally bright and determined
young women, the setting and
circumstances of a college for
women have remained anything
but unreal. Rather, the environ
ment of a women's college is very
real to these women precisely
because it affords them the special
opportunities for learning and
development that they believe they
cannot find elsewhere. It is very
hard, 1 think, to provide a
convincing counter-argument to
such a personal and telling point of
view.
Because 1 cannot and should not
speak on behalf of the personal
feelings of women, my point is best
made, perhaps, by relating a not
uncommon story. Shortly after my
arrival at Salem, it was my good
fortune to become well acquainted
with two students at the College—
one a transfer and the other a four-
year student, each quite different
than the other. While their hopes
and aspirations were as varied as
their talents and personalities, they
both held remarkably forceful
views concerning the worth of a
women's college.
The one who had entered as a
freshman reflected on her stay at
the College and commented: "My
four years at Salem didn't turn me
into a smug feminist, but it did
make me recognize and appreciate
a women's potential, and my own."
She went on to add that, based on
her own experience, she honestly
believed that "Salem women are
more ambitious, assertive, and
self-assured" than the women she
had met at coeducational colleges.
No less certain about her
reasons for being at Salem was the
student who had transferred to the
college from a large, public,
coeducational university. For her,
it was self-evident that if she
wanted to be taken seriously as
both a student and a woman, she
had to find an environment where
she would not be "a social security
number" or "feel lost." She chose
Salem, she claimed, because it was
"a .more personal place," a place
where her "professors were always
available, " a place where people
would "encourage me to reach
farther than 1 sometimes think I
can. . .[and] help me do my best".
Hardly atypical, these personal
testimonies as to the worth of the
separate education of women are
striking precisely because they
conyey the sentiments of many of
the women who continue to seek
out institutions like Salem. Which
is simply to say that it is from them
alone, in the end, that we can learn
the truth about a women's college.
Honor Council and Faculty Polarized I Road Again
By; Angie Bostrom
Chairman, Honor Council
This year Honor Council has
been investigating the possibility
of implementing an automatic
penalty for academic cheating. If a
student is found guilty of a non
procedural cheating violation, she
would receive an automatic
academic penalty.
With Faculty Advisory Board,
we have examined literature from
other colleges, reviewed Salem's
current procedures and policies,
and met with Dean Sullivan and
Dr. Litzenburg. Evaluating whe
ther or not this system is
appropriate for Salem is not a
clear-cut decision, and I am
interested in student opinion.
As the current policy stands,
when a student is found guilty of a
non-procedural cheating viola
tion, Honor Council makes a
recommendation to the faculty
concerning the student's academic
penalty. The faculty member may
choose whether or not to concur
with Honor Council's recom
mendation.
One of the issues surrounding
this penalty is the fact that the
privilege of determining an
academic penalty would no longer
lie in the hands of the professor.
The counter-point here would be
that the penalties for cheating
would be uniform—all students
found guilty of cheating would
receive the same penalty. Another
problem is finding a way to
implement the penalty - what
grade or notation would be given?
The faculty tabled a proposal
last spring that stated that a
student found guilty of academic
cheating would automatically
receive a grade of F in the course.
Does a student who cheats deserve
an academic evaluation? Has she
not forfeited her privilege of
academic evaluation? What is the
difference between a student
receiving an F because she just
could not pull her grade up above
70% and a student who cheats and
receives an automatic penalty?
Should the student simply be
withdrawn from the course and
receive no grade or withdrawal
notation?
In light of all of these problems,
the idea of an automatic penalty
still has its good points. For one
thing, an automatic penalty
adheres to Salem's published
policies on Honor and the Honor
Tradition. We are a community
based on Honor, and cheating of
any kind does not belong in such
an environment.
Some faculty have questioned
the Honor Council's authority in
even recommending penalties
involving academic cheating. Who
else on campus deals with cheating
violations? Why do we even have a
council if the students in the group
do not have any right to enforce
the Honor Code? The published
duties of your Honor Council
include maintaining the standards
of honor at Salem College. The
automatic penalty would ensure
that our penalties would be
uniform, and we would still have
the ability to look at each case
individually and decide innocence
or guilt.
As one can well see, this issue is
not as simple and clear-cut as it
would seem on the surface. There
are easily two sides to be taken, but
there are a great deal of advantages
and disadvantages to either side.
If you have any input whatso
ever, or would like to find out more
about the proposal, please contact
any member of Honor Council or
myself. We are sincerely interested
in student opinion and hope that
you will respond.
By; Leigh Rippin
SGA President
In North Carolina, one out of
five families is headed by a
woman.
The median income for a family
headed by a woman is $9,320;
34% of these families currently
live in poverty. Projections for
the year 2,000 are that all
families headed by women will
live in poverty.
Fewer women are marrying,
and those who do are marrying
at an older age. In 1983, 25% of
the women between the ages of
25 and 29 had never married, as
compared with 10% in 1970.
52% of all women work outside
the home; projections for the
year 2,000 are that 77% of
women will be employed.
Women are, by and large, still
clustered in 20 of 441 occupa
tions listed in the Census
Occupation Classification Sys
tem.
Women (still) earn 59« for
every dollar earned by men.
1 am the first to admit that
statistics can be boring; however,
there is no avoiding these. The
pressure is evidenjt. As women
today, we must be prepared for
what awaits us. Independence,
strength, leadership, and ambition
are no longer virtues we hope to
acquire - they are virtures we must
acquire.
Many of Salem's students,
including myself, are from the
South. We live in extremely
"Southern" communities which do
indeed invoke pressure. Think
about it. Do our families, religions,
and backgrounds try to tell us what
we should be? If so, does the effect
differ from that in other parts of
the country? Are we considered
"abnormal" if we strive towards
independence? Finally, are our
parents, families, and educators
aware of our present pressures?
Angie Bostrom, Vicki Gaines,
and I have been toying with these
questions for several weeks. We
are convinced that these issues,
which inescapably lead to other
issues, are worthly of discussion.
The three of us have been working
with Terry Moore-Painter and
Psggy Scholley (of the Develop
ment Otiice), Dr. Litzenburg,
Dean Johnson, and Debbie Cates.
' Together, we have comprised a list
of proposed topics for a Southern
Women's Student Leadership
Conference. We cannot attempt to
formulate "solutions" through this
continued on page 7