|
Web Exclusives:
Under the Ivy November
19, 2003: Battles
of the Sexes The cover story of the New York Times Magazine of October 26 focused on women —many of them Princeton women, in this particular article — who had chosen to step down from powerful jobs or away from demanding career tracks to spend more time at home with their families. It's a topic that certainly has my interest, given that in 2002 I resigned from a wonderful job as editor of PAW to concentrate on raising my two (now to be three) children. The article by Lisa Belkin '82 discussed the coeducation of Princeton, which began in 1969, and questioned why, when nearly 35 years later the barriers to women in higher education and in the workplace have all but disappeared, ambitious, smart, educated women are opting out of the demands of working life. The article prompted me to look back at the 1968 volume of PAW sitting on my bookshelf. In its September 24, 1968, issue, PAW published the full text of the Patterson Report, a study led by Professor Gardner Patterson to examine the feasibility and desirability of opening Princeton's door to women. The group's conclusion was straightforward: "Princeton would be a better university if women were admitted to the undergraduate college." The stated reasons were numerous, but included that "for Princeton to remain an all-male institution in the face of today's evolving social system would be out of keeping with her past willingness to change with the time"; that if Princeton remained all-male its "competitive position for students, for faculty, and for financial support would be less strong than it is now"; and that "essential to the most able students are means of learning from each other ... learning from persons who have different combinations of qualities — intellectual, emotional, and social; probing and testing against other minds which respond differently." In response to one common concern, the committee wrote, "The notion that a coeducational Princeton would be simply a husband-hunting ground for many of the women, and a source of social and sexual convenience for the men, simply does not stand up under examination. ... At Princeton one would confidently expect the women to do as well academically as the men — perhaps better." In the course of its study, Patterson's group conducted a number of polls, of alumni, faculty, and students. One in particular seemed to highlight the tension between the necessity and the desirability of moving forward with coeducation and the yearning to hang on the traditions of the past — the "charisma" of Princeton, as lone committee dissenter Arthur J. Horton '42, director of development, put it in his minority report. When asked about the current social climate at Princeton, 40 percent of current students said the all-male environment "detracted greatly from the Princeton experience," with another 40 percent calling the social scene only "tolerable," and 73 percent believed coeducation would "enlarge and enrich" the social life. Yet slightly more than half, 56 percent, still said they would advise an academically qualified younger brother to accept admission to an all-male Princeton. (A full 76 percent of the Class of '71, those starry-eyed freshmen, said they would.) Given the tension, one would have expected an overwhelming response from alumni over the Patterson Report. Yet a month later, PAW reported, the magazine had received only 14 letters. Four applauded the findings of the report; eight protested it strongly; and two had other comments. The four positive letters all came from alumni who were teachers, either at the college or high school level, and concluded, in the words of Trudeau Thomas '23, "I am sure the many plus values coeducation would bring to Princeton far outweigh the few aspects of our University we would lose." The letters against were somewhat more inflammatory, and proved
that the peculiar habit of Princeton alumni to turn to poetry under
times of stress is a time-honored one. Wrote George Cook III '26,
"The charts reveal/ With sex appeal/ That Princeton should
go co-ed./ To the Trustees/ My plea is "Please/ Wait until
I am stone dead!"
Jane Martin ’89 is PAW's former editor-in-chief. You can reach her at paw@princeton.edu
|
