My Dream College Won't Accept Me Because I'm a Woman

[struggle4progress]

Elif Koc
Jan 17 2013, 12:40 PM ET

"Isolated," "labor-intensive," and "rural" are not typical keywords for a high school girl's college dream. But they were for mine. With a student body of 26 and an emphasis on manual labor, Deep Springs was unlike any college I had heard of. Students enroll for two years and receive full-tuition scholarships, then transfer to a four-year college program to complete their degrees. Admissions are extremely competitive—accepted students have an average score of 700 (out of 800) on each of the math and verbal sections of the SAT. Located in California's High Desert, the school has a cattle ranch and an alfalfa farm, where students are not only obligated to their education but also to the demands of the agriculture around them. Deep Springs emphasizes self-governance; students belong to committees to make important decisions about the school, from hiring new teachers to soliciting media attention. The school uses these three pillars of education—physical labor, immersive academics, and democratic deliberation—to fulfill its purpose of creating students who dedicate their lives to service of humanity.

But there's one more thing. Since its founding in 1917, Deep Springs has been an all-male institution. A couple years ago, as I enviously clicked through the Deep Springs website, the opportunity to attend was not open to me. Little did I know, at the same time, the Board of Trustees had entered a process to challenge the all-male tradition. In the fall of 2011, they announced at their bi-annual meeting that they had come to the monumental decision to open their doors (or more likely, their gates) to female applicants. In what seemed like fate calling out to me, the first class of women would enter in 2013, the year I graduate from high school ...

When the board made their decision on co-education in late 2011, they voted ten to two. The two trustees who voted against the decision were alumni of the school who believed the importance of remaining in the bounds of the trust—which states that Deep Spring's purpose is to educate young men ...

Despite the complex trust law issues and the ongoing court case, the issue to me is simple. Young women aren't able to apply to a school like Deep Springs, and we should be ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/my-dream-college-wont-accept-me-because-im-a-woman/267290/

[truedelphi]

1. That college had appeal for me, but

(Sigh) at the time i heard about it, I was looking for colleges for my junior year son. And so I was already done with college.

Plus being a woman made it seem unlikely they would take me.

I do think this could be a case regarding one's civil rights. (If one were college bound and excelled in all the other requirements except for being three legged.) So good thing they entered the modern world and decided to admit young women.

[virgogal]

2. Ridiculous. What about Wellesley? Smith?

[struggle4progress]

11. I can't see how a civil rights lawsuit would play out

The board of trustees finally voted to go coed, and a California court has blocked that for the time-being in a suit by two trustees, based on the wording of a 1923 charitable trust

Suing the board currently, on the complaint the college isn't coed, will probably result in a dismissal on the grounds that the board is already on record supporting admission of women and the matter is already in court; and if the board loses the lawsuit, a suit against the board, on the complaint the college isn't coed, would probably result in a dismissal on the grounds that the board had attempted to accept women and had been blocked by another court from doing so. Nobody can sue the two dissenting trustees simply for taking their dissent to court: that's why the courts are there.

[truedelphi]

13. Hmmm. here's my legal rebutal -

Yes back in 1923 women were just arriving on the scene in terms of legal civil rights.

However that somewhat legalizing of women didn't make things easier for women. I had friends denied entrance to fire depts as fire fighters in the mid-seventies. I had a friend denied being a pool service person in the late sixties. All gender based decisions. I know when I applied for jobs in the 1970's, if I asked about job openings at a compnay, I would be told in great detail that there were receptionist positions, and secretarial positions, but if a male friend asked the same question, he'd be told about sales positions.

So women have only really arrived in the employment world in the Nineties; When I was in engineering classes, back in the late 70's, only 2 out of 23 engineering students were females.

So what if the original "trust" prohibited females? What if the original trust to a college was created in 1855 and stated that black people were slaves, and no African Americans could be admitted.

How is this any different??

[struggle4progress]

14. If I understand correctly, the dissenting trustees, in filing their lawsuit

in California court, in order to block the board of trustees from admitting young women, argued that the charitable trust was established for "the education of promising young men" and could not be read otherwise. And if I understand correctly, the board of trustees, in response to the suit filed by two dissenting trustees, argued in Court that the language, restricting the charitable trust to "the education of promising young men," was archaic language, reflecting only the cultural usages of its time, and that the board had, after due deliberation and consideration, concluded that the language would best be understood as actually establishing the trust for "the education of promising young persons." And if I further understand correctly, the California court has to date sided with the dissenting trustees, but has not yet issued its final ruling in the matter

The college website has a page devoted to coeducation, including pdfs some of court filings by the board of trustees and extensive comments (reproduced with permission but stripped of any identifying personal information) from disappointed women who had begun the application process and then had to be notified of the court decision. A statement from the board of trustees, regarding the court decision is also published there:

There are several legal theories supporting coeducation at Deep Springs. The judge suggested that we consider them one at a time, so this first decision addressed only the narrow issue of interpretation of the trust. As a board, we are appealing that decision. We are also proceeding with our request that the court modify the terms of the trust. There are other options, but this is where we will begin ...

If I understand correctly: although the judge has ruled that the trust cannot be construed as being for "the education of promising young persons," the judge has not yet ruled on whether the trust can be modified to allow admission of women; the board is appealing the judge's first ruling; and the board believes there are other legal avenues for admitting women, should the judge's first ruling be upheld on appeal and should the board fail to obtain a modification of the trust

I myself naturally hope, especially after reading the comments of the disappointed women who applied, that the board of trustees prevails in its attempt to admit women. But I'm not a lawyer, and I cannot address the legal issues decisively: the matter is in court and will be resolved there. And,nonprofessional that I am, I really can't imagine who would be the proper respondent for some civil rights lawsuit, if the board did not succeed in its attempt to admit women

[truedelphi]

15. In any case,you have done a remarkable job of

Laying out this lawsuit and its background and repercussions etc.

I find the law "entertaining" and enjoy pondering its "in's" and "out's" so this whole discussion was appreciated. And on your end, it looks well researched and looks like it took quite a bit of time, so my appreciation is doubled! (I was able to just type off the top of my head.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Interesting topic.

Should gender specific colleges be made co-ed?

[struggle4progress]

4. In this case, the trustees seem to have reached general agreement

that the college should become coed, and the college started to accept applications from women, but two dissenting alumni/trustees seem (at least for the moment) to have blocked the change in a California court

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Why are there 3 men's colleges and 47 women's colleges? n/t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_colleges_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_colleges_in_the_United_States#Today

[struggle4progress]

6. Probably because most US colleges originally did not admit women, so several colleges

were eventually founded to provide women with some educational opportunities

Yale Will Admit Women in 1969; May Have Coeducational Housing
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
November 15, 1968
Yale President Kingman Brewster announced yesterday that Yale will become coeducational in September 1969. The announcement came shortly after the Yale faculty approved with only one dissenting vote a plan to admit 250 freshman women plus 250 upperclass women by transfer. Eventually 1500 women will be admitted in addition to the 4000 male students...

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Let me ask my question another way.

Why in the last 100-ish years did the patriarchy create 47 women's schools while either closing or making men's schools coeducational?

(For all practical purposes, men's colleges are seminaries.)

a) what does equality say about the topic?
b) what does feminism say about the topic?

[struggle4progress]

8. Because, as I just said, until recently most US colleges did not admit women:

Radcliffe and Harvard
... Radcliffe College had been founded in 1879 "to furnish instruction and the opportunities of collegiate life to women and to promote their higher education" ... From 1879 to 1943, Harvard professors repeated to Radcliffe students the lectures they gave at Harvard. In 1943, the instruction of Radcliffe undergraduates became a formal responsibility of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Three years later all courses were made coeducational, except for some of the large freshman courses, which remained segregated for several more years ... Harvard degrees were awarded to Radcliffe students for the first time in 1963, and in the same year women were admitted to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In 1967, the doors of Lamont Library were opened to women ... In 1975, the two Colleges combined their separate admissions offices and an equal access admissions policy was adopted ... On September 14, 1999, the governing bodies of Harvard and Radcliffe completed the merger of the two institutions. Harvard College assumed full responsibility for the education of undergraduate women ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Let's use Columbia as an example.

Why did they choose to not follow Harvard's example and merge Barnard College into the now co-ed Columbia University?

Barnard college is one of the most selective universities in the nation, with a rejection rate of 80%. 100% for men.

Why did the patriarchy close or make men's schools co-ed, while leaving intact a robust system of women's colleges?

[struggle4progress]

10. You can best discuss Columbia's decisions with someone who speaks for Columbia

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. 47:3 is a cultural phenomenon.

And should reasonably be discussed in a social context, specifically as it is reflective of something about the patriarchy.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

16. I would be very interested in knowing just how many men

want to attend Barnard College. I think the issue is one of equality of opportunity joined with equality of educational value. And the numbers to which these factors apply. Are we talking 100 men barred from female institutions v 1000s of females barred from all male
institutions?

U VA, for example, did not become co-ed until September of 1970...meanwhile it was considered the state university. Women were forced to go to lesser credentialed institutions or out of state at greater cost.

In a perfect world, all institutions of higher learning would be co-educational... even the seminaries.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. How many women wanted to attend VMI? One, if I recall correctly.

I don't think it should be a numbers game.

Personally, I think there's a place for women's colleges, AND men's colleges. The same benefits that Hillary Clinton obtained by going to Wellesley could help young men if something analogous existed for them.

My point is more of a macro one. Why are women's colleges acceptable and men's colleges not? I think it says something about the patriarchy that my fellow progressives don't like to acknowledge, specifically, the patriarchy is intended to protect women.

An alternative explanation is a business one; women are bigger consumers of college education, so schools are simply going where the money is.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

18. I agree, it shouldn't be a numbers game....

but there was a long history of women trying to get into the service academies. I think everything must be viewed within the historical context.

I don't know that here were any specific benefits of going to Wellesley. Harvard didn't become co-ed until 1973 at the undergraduate level....Yale in 1969 the year Clinton Law School...

I'm fairly certain if the men's colleges were third tier, they would be perfectly acceptable.

****the patriarchy is intended to protect women.**** Sorry...I don't buy it. The patriarchy is what it always has been...an effort to control women. Which is not to say that I believe every man walking the face of the earth seeks to control the women in his life... I've known plenty who didn't. But the institutionalized patriarchy is all about control...just look at the past several years of anti-abortion legislation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Protection and control often overlap.

Many of the people trying to stop Femen from protesting in their chosen manner believe they are doing so to protect them.

I see little evidence that women's colleges are popular because of a desire to control women.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

20. Protect tham from what exactly?

Their own basic biological urges?

Have you never wondered who sends their daughters to women's colleges? My own daughters would have refused to go to one such. When there were few alternatives, it was acceptable. Today it is an absurdity...imo.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. All I know is that Barnard college currently rejects 80% of applicants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard_College

So a lot of young women are applying. I generally assume that women are making their own choices.

In the case of Femen, people are preventing them from protesting in the name of protecting them from bad choices.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

22. Few young women get to have the entire say

on where they go to college.