Men in Women's Studies: The Mary Daly Case

The WMST-L discussion Men in Women's Studies Classes II (Feb. 1999)
eventually turned into the following lengthy debate about Boston College
Women's Studies professor Mary Daly's decision not to allow men in her
feminist ethics course.  Daly claims that men's presence has a negative
effect on her female students.  The last two messages in Part 3 of this
file date from early 2001; the last one reports the settlement of Daly's
lawsuit. For additional WMST-L files now available on the Web, see the
WMST-L File List

PAGE 1 OF 3
===========================================================================

Our collegue, Mary Daly, is making national news again. The papers are
giving a one-sided account of her decision to not allow men into her
seminar course. The male in question is sponsored by a conservative
"Individual rights" think tank. He does not have the prerequisite Daly
requires for the course and she wants to keep this class as a safe
place for women to learn and express controversial feminist thought.
 
I look at this move as a ploy by Boston College to force Daly to
retire, and to finally get her radical ways off of their campus.
(Previous attempts to get her to leave have included changing her
class locations and schedules without telling Dr. Daly.)
 
Have others seen similar subversive methods being used on their
campuses? Is this something that is limited to private religious-based
universities?
 
What can we do to protect a professor's right to create her own class
designs and curriculum decisions?
 
 
Thoughts like this swirl thru my brain..
 
 
Tess Pierce
 
University of Denver (tpierce   AT   du.edu)
===========================================================================

As far as I can tell, a professor's right to "create her own class designs
and curriculum decisions" does not include the right to discriminate
against a particular group. Requiring prerequisites is obviously a very
different matter, and would apply equally to all students, as individuals,
regardless of which group they belong to.
      I cannot imagine feminists defending such exclusionary practices as
Daly's in keeping men out of classes, since quite obviously feminists
object to the reverse practice.  Nor can I imagine that saying "men have
done the same thing in the past, so now it's O.K. for us to do it" is a
convincing or helpful response.  It doesn't matter whether the male student
in question is a conservative or a this or a that. Except for prerequisites
or other requirements relating to the course work, professors cannot
exclude students from their classes.
      As to how common a practice it is, I know of various women's studies
professors who discourage men from their classes and hope they will drop
out (sometimes with encouragement), but I know of none who categorically
announce they will not teach men - no doubt because they are aware this is
both illegal and untenable.  Feminism did not promise to bring us the same
old ills in reverse; it held out the promise of a better world, period.
Every time feminists deviate from that promise, more allies, real and
potential, are lost.  And every time feminists act in a way that is
hypocritical or opportunistic, in disregard of principles they claim to
uphold, they invite dismissal and opposition.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu
===========================================================================

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999, 3:25 PM, Tess Pierce <tess   AT   harmonysoftware.com> and
<tpierce   AT   du.edu> wrote:
 
 
> Our collegue, Mary Daly, is making national news again. The papers are
> giving a one-sided account of her decision to not allow men into her
> seminar course. The male in question is sponsored by a conservative
> "Individual rights" think tank. He does not have the prerequisite Daly
> requires for the course
 
-that's certainly a standard reason for not allowing a student to enroll in
a course, but it does not typically bring political attention.
 
> and she wants to keep this class as a safe place
> for women to learn and express controversial feminist thought.
 
I understand from the news accounts I've read and discussion on other lists
(e.g., SWIP-L) that the focus of the complaint is Daly's policy of
restricting enrollment to women in at least some of her courses. I've also
read that she offers 'independent study' courses for men who want to work
with her on some topics.
 
> I look at this move as a ploy by Boston College ...
> Have others seen similar subversive methods being used on their campuses?
> Is this something that is limited to private religious-based universities?
> What can we do to protect a professor's right to create her own class
> designs and curriculum decisions?
 
In this case, it might require repeal of (parts of) Title IX.  To remind
WMST-L readers of a reference (and thread) from several years ago:
 
Fred von Lohmann, "Single-Sex Courses, Title IX and Equal Protection: The
Case for Self-Defense for Women,"_Stanford Law Review_ (November 1995).
 
makes a good case that gender-segregated classes would be legally highly
problematic. (His case seemed good enough to me that I sent a copy of the
article to my university's Office of Legal Affairs.)
 
As long as Boston College accepts (a sufficient level of) federal funding,
it's subject to Title IX.  I don't know what effect its also being a
private, religious institution would have.  Perhaps someone might try to
argue that such institutions should have greater leeway to maintain certain
policies (e.g., gender segregation) if those policies are tied closely to
the relevant religious beliefs. But I'm not sure how the argument would go,
and it's rather risky to make it since it would open the door to many
different kinds of gender and other sorts of segregation in such
institutions. It's also difficult to see how such argument could help in the
present instance.
 
For a public university, such as mine, to adopt such a policy would likely
be judged illegal government-enforced gender-segregation. That's my guess,
anyway.
 
One question worth asking attorneys experienced in this area of law - e.g.,
some attorneys in university offices of legal affairs - is whether gender
(or other kinds of) segregated classes might be legally permissible as an
occasional pedagogical experiment where there was good reason to believe
that (i) no significant harm would be done and (ii) educational goals would
be better served in through such segregation.  (When I corresponded with von
Lohmann in 1995, his rather well-informed opinion was that even such limited
experimentation would be legally problematic.)
 
Since Daly appears to have a long-standing policy and practice of enrolling
women only in some of her courses, it would be more difficult to defend the
claim that she's conducting a suitably limited pedagogical experiment.
Perhaps some attorneys could be found who'd argue that case at the necessary
length (years in court and thousands of pages of documentation).
 
I don't find it wholly implausible to suppose that a college or university
would not pay attention to a potential legal problem until it was forced
upon their attention. ("Let's wait to see if anyone complains." In many
place and instances, that's common operating procedure, risky though it can
be.) And I don't doubt that some right wing forces have joined to get rid of
a provocative feminist professor.
 
David.
 
---------------------------------------
David F. Austin
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Box 8103
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103
(919) 515-6333 Winston Hall 006
David_Austin   AT   ncsu.edu
Sexual Harassment Resolution Officer
NCSU Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/provost/info/sexhar/sexhar.html
===========================================================================

The other thing that's so interesting about any feminist defense of Daly is
that sexual harassment is currently illegal because the courts have
accepted the argument that it is a form of discrimination.  Most feminists
support this interpretation of what sexual harassment is. Yet Daly is
engaging in direct discrimination, by-passing the "sexual harassment"
component.  To defend her is to say the indirect form of discrimination -
via sexual harassment that affects one's ability to participate in the
class or program -- is appropriately illegal, but the direct form of
discrimination is (or should be) O.K. - at least when done by a feminist
professor against a male student. This makes mincemeat of the notion that
serious ethical principles reside in feminism.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu
===========================================================================

Tess Pierce writes:
 
> Our collegue, Mary Daly, is making national news again. The papers are
> giving a one-sided account of her decision to not allow men into her
> seminar course. The male in question is sponsored by a conservative
> "Individual rights" think tank. He does not have the prerequisite Daly
> requires for the course and she wants to keep this class as a safe
> place for women to learn and express controversial feminist thought.
 
    Though I certainly understand and sympathize with the wish to have a
harmonious classroom, I strongly disagree with Mary Daly's stated refusal
to admit men to this class.  Her refusal apparently is not limited to men
who lack the course's prerequisite.  According to the Boston Globe:
 
"But Daly argues she cannot effectively teach these courses with men in
the room because it creates a dynamic that inhibits women. Not only do
men misunderstand her concepts - because men cannot understand what
it's like to be a woman - but they tend to be disruptive, believing
they are similarly oppressed, she says. These kinds of disrupting
influences 'dumb down' the class, she insists, keeping it from 'soaring.'"
 
        Articles in The Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher
Education are pretty much in accord with the Globe's account.
 
        We've spent years combatting just this kind of thinking: that women
are too much of a distraction for men to permit them in the classroom, the
boardroom, the army, the workplace, etc.  And now along comes Mary Daly
spewing forth the same offensive nonsense in reverse.
 
        I know that in some respects, the issue is more complicated,
but when it comes to the classroom or the workplace or other public
settings, I reject and regret what she's saying.
 
        Joan
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Korenman                 korenman   AT   umbc2.umbc.edu
U. of Md. Baltimore County    http://www.umbc.edu/cwit/
Baltimore, MD 21250           http://www.umbc.edu/wmst/
 
The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Joan Korenman wrote:
 
>         We've spent years combatting just this kind of thinking: that women
> are too much of a distraction for men to permit them in the classroom, the
> boardroom, the army, the workplace, etc.  And now along comes Mary Daly
> spewing forth the same offensive nonsense in reverse.
 
I remember watching a news story last Fall in which a coach of a
California High School football team was bitterly complaining that Title
IX was destroying *his* program.  He was not only upset about funds being
equitably distributed between the football and field hockey programs, he
was absolutely enraged that the marching band was going to be dividing its
participation between the two programs, and that the homecoming
celebration for the coming year would be held in the context of a field
hockey and not a football game.
 
If the controversy surrounding Mary Daly is truly a Title IX issue, then
it is difficult to celebrate the above victory while at the same time
supporting her course admittance policies.
 
Angela Pattatucci Aragon
ampatt02   AT   athena.louisville.edu
===========================================================================

At 05:42 PM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>The other thing that's so interesting about any feminist defense of Daly is
>that sexual harassment is currently illegal because the courts have
>accepted the argument that it is a form of discrimination.  Most feminists
>support this interpretation of what sexual harassment is. Yet Daly is
>engaging in direct discrimination, by-passing the "sexual harassment"
>component.  To defend her is to say the indirect form of discrimination -
>via sexual harassment that affects one's ability to participate in the
>class or program -- is appropriately illegal, but the direct form of
>discrimination is (or should be) O.K. - at least when done by a feminist
>professor against a male student. This makes mincemeat of the notion that
>serious ethical principles reside in feminism.
>---------------------------------
>daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu

What Mary Daly is doing is not sexual harassment as the term is usually
interpreted.  If he is not there he cannot be harassed.  Judges,
furthermore, insist on a sexual rather than a gender  componant.  While I
disagree with that approach that is what is current in the courts.
 
Were I to have been able to keep men out of my classes while, on the one
hand, I would not have been able to have really brilliant pro feminist men
in my clas, but on the other I would not have been kicked out of letters and
Science of the Univ of Illinois at Chicago by a misogynist male who
complained to a misogynist dean, and I might still be teaching in LA.  I was
totally turned off by the dominance of another dominant male who set the
tone of the class as adversarial.  Since he was a senior and they were first
year students they considered his perspective equal if not superior to mine.
 
So While it is illegal to keep them out, not infrequently they take the
classes to destroy them. Probably the best response by one graduate student
who said "As a Marxist Leninist I know you have the right to keep me out,
but  I would like permission to take the class".  He did brilliantly, and co
authored a paper with me.  Would that the other men be so respectful.
 
Pauline
===========================================================================

There are some disturbing elements in the suggestion that Mary Daly's
stance and/or any support for her by anyone identified as feminist
"makes mincemeat of the notion that serious ethical principles reside
in feminism":
 
1)  Such an assertion falls into the logical fallacy of oversimplification
in that it reduces multiple feminist perspectives to one monolithic image.
 
    This oversimplification is unfortunate enough when it comes
    from outside feminist communities and, though ignorance is
    certainly no excuse, perhaps such a view is understandable
    coming from those who haven't been exposed to the complexity
    and variety of feminism.  However, it's even more unfortunate
    when such a statement comes from within a feminist community,
    because it suggests an obliviousness to or even possibly a
    deliberate closing of one's eyes to the multiplicity of
    forms feminist thought can and does take.
 
 
2)  That the assertion was made before more than a handful of list
members had picked up this thread is not only oversimplification in
in an obvious way, but also apparently assumed--in a potentially, although
perhaps unintentionally insulting way--that those prior posts could
be overgeneralized to represent all feminists.  The post that immediately
followed this assertion clearly contradicts that assumption.
 
3)  The assertion also makes certain assumptions about "ethical
principles" (perhaps I'm being picky, but I find a redundancy in the
expression "serious ethical principles," since I'd assume that
principles of ethics are by nature serious--unless there was an
implication that the ethical principles of feminist work are frivolous,
trivial, or even put on as decorative baubles or some other surface
veneer for show as opposed to being fundamentally integrated into
feminist thought. Perhaps the last comes to my mind because the word
"notion," though it does refer to ideas and concepts, suggests to me
the other references to "fanciful impulse" and "whim," as well as to
small household items, as in buttons (but not--it should be noted--as
in 6-penny nails or hex nuts).
 
    First, it seems to assume a quite limited, and perhaps absolutist,
definition of "ethics," because of the suggestion that Mary Daly is
operating on the basis of no ethical claim, though it's not clear
whether we have knowledge of all of the facts in this case--including
all of her motivations.  My ethical beliefs in this matter don't
necessarily coincide with hers (but because I don't have all the facts
I don't feel comfortable making a definitive conclusion, at least not
yet), but can I say that because she differs from me that she's
unethical?  I may (or may not) believe that she's misguided; however, I
may also be aware (as most definitely Aristotle in his _Rhetoric_ was)
that the particular contingencies of the situation in which she's acting
may justify her stance.  Of course, I'm not necessarily ruling out other--
perhaps even possibly irrational or politically manipulative--motives.
But I can't assume these more problematic motives, nor can I simply
dismiss her as unethical, even though my own position may be the polar
opposite of hers.  (And--at least right now, in terms of who and where
and what I'm teaching--I wouldn't feel it to be right to exclude
anybody from my class--unless, for instance, I had an already-existing
court order against them.)
 
    Second, the legal battles and the discussions in so many forums
that have been going on about the issue of segregated classes indicates
that in the United States, at least, there is no uniform belief about
an absolute right-or-wrongness on the issue.  So many of these cases
involve contingencies of specific situations that may make sex-based/
racial/religious/ethnic/age-based segregation valid in one case and
not in another.
 
There are more nuances that could be developed, but this, I think, is
enough for now.
 
Connie Ostrowski
ostroc   AT   rpi.edu (alum account)
===========================================================================

The Mary Daly issue is complicated, but bottom line is that it is
illegal--and for a feminist (or anyone who is teaching), I
feel--unethical, to refuse enrollment to any person who wishes to take a
class and who has the necessary prerequisites to do so. If the student
that Daly has turned away doesn't have the requirements necessary for
the course, then he should be sent back to get them, and then invited
back to take the course next time around.
 
It goes without saying that we all, without exception, each and every
single time, require all students--female or male--to have all the
prerequisites in hand before signing up for courses. Right? Right.
 
The issue about the prerequisites is a legitimate one, but in this case
Daly is obviously using it as a smokescreen. If the student had those
prereqs in hand, we all know she'd still be refusing his enrollment. The
prerequisite that this student doesn't have is the proper biological
sex--female.
 
If one wishes to teach women-only classes, there are places where it is
perfectly legal to do that: in women-only schools. Daly's "radicalism"
in this context really has more to do with her defiance of the
law--especially laws that were meant to help women and to eliminate
discrimination for all people. We can admire her for all the years she's
been allowed to get away with being a radical separatist. Radicals like
Daly and others set the stage for major change. Radical feminists and
lesbian-feminist separatists do us a great service--they focus our
attention and our anger and help us to move through issues that are of
grave importance. But radicalism is never static, or settled. It has to
change and transform to stay ahead of whatever needs changing. It isn't
easy to stay radical in an institutional setting--the essence and
dynamics of radical politics resists this kind of domestication. How
long can a thorn remain in a lion's paw? Until the gets tired of it.
Then we have to go and stick a different thorn in a different paw. Or
maybe a bigger thorn. Or maybe in a place that is even more irritating
than the paw.
 
A really radical stance--but admittedly much, much harder work for
instructor and students--would be to admit the student--with the proper
prerequisites, of course--and to have him follow the course just as the
rest of the students are being asked to do. If we are teaching radical
ideas and using radical politics to get our points across, we must
expect to deal with adversarial views in the classroom. But if the
student is disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, toss him out.
There are ways to keep a classroom civil.
 
This issue just brings us right back to the identity issue once again;
in this case we react very strongly to this person's wish to be admitted
to Daly's class because he has been identified as a "representative" of
a right-wing organization. But he is still a student at Boston College,
isn't he? Imagine if the student were not identified with some
hot-button issue like Christian conservatism or some other "Individual
Rights" cause? What if this student happened to be Christie's gay male
student? A male student who was seriously interested in Mary Daly's
brand of separatist feminism? Or a transsexual, heterosexual male? Or a
transsexual lesbian female? Or even better, a female student
"representing" the same group that our now infamous male student
"represents"? She could be just as disruptive as the male student.
 
Point is, we can't exclude. Our power to change the world really lies in
our ability to reach out and change the minds of those who might
otherwise oppose us. If they come to us, then let's teach them. They may
come in with some idea that they'd like to "destroy" the class. Maybe
they can be sent out at the end of the semester with a slightly
different perspective. Who knows? (Okay, so I'm being naive!)
 
Let the student enroll. If he doesn't like Mary Daly's radical
separatist politics, then he can drop the class. Daly does have the
right, as Tess Pierce points out, "to create her own class designs and
curriculum decisions" ... but that doesn't include the right to pick and
choose her students. As noted, this power can be, and is often, abused.
===========================================================================

[Identity masked] wrote in part:
 
> The Mary Daly issue is complicated, but bottom line is that it is
> illegal ... to refuse enrollment to any person who wishes to take a
> class and who has the necessary prerequisites to do so.
 
This is a particularly forthright statement of a belief that I've seen
asserted confidently by at least six different people on a number of lists.
 
If anyone who is confident that this practice is illegal (for any
institution that enrolls men and accepts federal funds?) could point me to
the relevant citations and case law, I'd be very grateful. I do try to keep
up with the law in this area, but I could easily have missed something
relevant. I would agree that this practice is probably illegal - and that
the more important question is whether it's ethical and good pedagogical
practice - but I'm not sure how some have achieved confidence about the
illegality. Induction tells me that I've likely not seen relevant material.
 
Thanks for any help.
 
David.
 
---------------------------------------
David F. Austin
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Box 8103
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103
(919) 515-6333 Winston Hall 006
David_Austin   AT   ncsu.edu
Sexual Harassment Resolution Officer
NCSU Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/provost/info/sexhar/sexhar.html
===========================================================================

In 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments was enacted by Congress and
signed into law by Nixon.  Title IX outlawed any and all discrimination on
the basis of sex in educational institutions receiving federal dollars.  It
is because of Title IX that women's sports have developed at the university
level over the past few decades (often at the specific expense of men's
sports), and it is because sexual harassment has been interpreted as a form
of discrimination that it is illegal in school (and workplace--which is
covered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
---------------------------------
daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu
===========================================================================

Joan Korenman <korenman   AT   umbc2.umbc.edu> wrote in part:
 
>         We've spent years combating just this kind of thinking: that women
> are too much of a distraction for men to permit them in the classroom, the
> boardroom, the army, the workplace, etc.  And now along comes Mary Daly
> spewing forth the same offensive nonsense in reverse.
 
Suppose that women are much more likely to speak up and speak freely in a
woman-only class, and that this is helpful to their educations; and suppose
that men are still very likely to speak up and speak freely even when they
are in a very small minority in a class. These are claims I've often heard
and they seem to have some support. And perhaps this is what Daly has in
mind. (It seems very likely to be part of what she has in mind.) Why would
this be "the same offensive nonsense in reverse."? Isn't there room to argue
in favor of _some_ gender (or other category) segregated classes in some
curricula? It would be, I think, a very bad idea to build an entire
curriculum in this way, but why not allow some such classes, perhaps as a
medium-term, carefully evaluated experiment? Or, distinguishing among
multiple-section courses, single-section courses, and the individual classes
that comprise a course, why not allow some gender, etc.-segregated classes
or sections, perhaps also as a medium-term, carefully evaluated experiment?
(I'm not sure how to characterize "medium-term" here, but one semester with
two sections and one or two instructors is not going to be enough; four
semesters or, say, six quarters, seems a minimum to me.)
 
[A question on the side:  how common is it for women's colleges to have only
women in all their classes?]
 
It may be, of course, that a policy allowing such flexibility is so likely
to be abused in practice that it's not worth the risk of having it on the
books, but that's a separable issue.  And it might well be that working at
getting women (etc.) to speak up and speak more freely in a non-segregated
setting is the best way to go. But for all I know the best way to develop
desirable expressive habits is first to allow some women (etc.) to be in
some women (etc.)-only classes or courses.  Is there good reason to allow
women (etc.)-only consciousness raising groups, discussion sessions, ...
that (one hopes) are highly educational but not formally classified as
courses but to disallow gender (etc.)-segregated courses? How much should it
matter that the latter but not the former are typically taken for a grade?
And isn't it a good idea to allow some courses to run much as
consciousness-raising groups, ....
 
>         I know that in some respects, the issue is more complicated,
> but when it comes to the classroom or the workplace or other public
> settings, I reject and regret what she's saying.
 
I would guess that some of the issues adumbrated above are among the
complexities you had in mind, but I at least could benefit from more
discussion of them.
 
I am also somewhat skeptical that all public settings should be treated in
such similar ways. With its focus on educational goals, classroom practice
may need extra leeway that the workplace does not require for genuine
equality. (This seems to be a widely shared view among First Amendment
scholars and plenty of academics -e.g., me - when it comes to regulation of
classroom speech, though I don't mean to be focusing on what's legally
permissible.)  I'd like at least to see an argument foreclosing this
possibility if no such difference in leeway is needed.
 
One other very obvious complication is that classrooms are workplaces, and
workplaces can become classrooms.
 
David.
 
---------------------------------------
David F. Austin
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Box 8103
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103
(919) 515-6333 Winston Hall 006
David_Austin   AT   ncsu.edu
Sexual Harassment Resolution Officer
NCSU Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/provost/info/sexhar/sexhar.html
===========================================================================

With regard to David's question about the legality of excluding a
student from a class based on her or his biological sex, I must confess
that I'm not in possession of any case law to confirm whether or not the
practice is legal--but doesn't it seem logical to assume so? Isn't this
exactly why Title IX was created in the first place? And maybe we should
ask if Boston College has an anti-discrimination policy in place. If so,
they are violating their own rules. That might not be illegal, but it is
certainly cause for a lawsuit.
 
If David were to refuse enrollment to a female student in one of his
philosophy classes, would that be legal? What's the difference?
Discrimination is discrimination. If I'm teaching lesbian and gay
studies, do I have the right to refuse admission to students who won't
come out to me? Can someone teaching Native American studies refuse
admission to students who aren't Native Americans?
 
Granted, schools that do not receive federal funds can do a lot of
strange things that would not be tolerated in the public or other
private schools. There are many conservative christian colleges and
universities that have some odd rules and regulations regarding the
private lives of their students: many have students sign affidavits
confirming their heterosexuality (or sworn statements denouncing their
homosexuality) as prerequisites for admission ... or as cause for
revoking degrees or declining credits if they are later found to be
lesbian or gay. But those are strictly private institutions that are
ruled by biblical, rather than civil/secular, law.
===========================================================================

For those who are interested in reviewing Boston College's official
policies on discrimination, see this page at their website:
 
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/hvp/b/handbook.html#discharass
 
The web page notes that these rules apply to all--faculty, staff, and
students.
===========================================================================

David Austin writes:
 
> Suppose that women are much more likely to speak up and speak freely in a
> woman-only class, and that this is helpful to their educations; and suppose
> that men are still very likely to speak up and speak freely even when they
> are in a very small minority in a class. These are claims I've often heard
> and they seem to have some support. And perhaps this is what Daly has in
> mind. (It seems very likely to be part of what she has in mind.) Why would
> this be "the same offensive nonsense in reverse."? Isn't there room to argue
> in favor of _some_ gender (or other category) segregated classes in some
> curricula? It would be, I think, a very bad idea to build an entire
> curriculum in this way, but why not allow some such classes, perhaps as a
> medium-term, carefully evaluated experiment? Or, distinguishing among
> multiple-section courses, single-section courses, and the individual classes
> that comprise a course, why not allow some gender, etc.-segregated classes
> or sections, perhaps also as a medium-term, carefully evaluated experiment?
 
        I have no easy answers to David's thoughtful and thought-provoking
questions.  It seems to me, though, that just as it's wrong to bar women
from the classroom out of fear that they will distract men, so too is it
wrong to bar men because they may inhibit women.  Such exclusions are based
on sweeping and often inaccurate generalizations about "men" and "women."
(This is not to deny that some women may distract some men, and some men
may inhibit some women--and also that some men may distract other men, and
some women may inhibit other women.)
 
        I'd like to be open to some of the experimentation David suggests,
though it seems to me likely to create at least as many problems as it
solves.  But, be that as it may, Mary Daly wasn't proposing a carefully
evaluated experiment in a multiple-section course.  She was simply saying
that she didn't want men in the class because they create a dynamic that
inhibits women.  Her offering to let men pursue the subject matter via
independent study, carefully isolated from women, does not strike me as an
acceptable or responsible solution.
 
        Joan
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Korenman                 korenman   AT   umbc2.umbc.edu
U. of Md. Baltimore County    http://www.umbc.edu/cwit/
Baltimore, MD 21250           http://www.umbc.edu/wmst/
 
The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================

Greetings:
 
Like bell hooks, I believe men must be our comrades in the struggle to
end patriarchy.  However, putting them on glass escalators will only
perpetuate the system.  So how to we handle the situation?  Well, for
starters, let's be honest with the students.
 
Why can't Intro to WS profs be completely straightforward with their
students about the problem FROM DAY ONE onward?  Why can't WS profs say
on the first day of class, "Numerous studies have shown that even in
WS classes, men tend to dominate conversations"?  Why can't WS profs
devise gatekeeping strategies?  Why can't WS profs say, "Your grade is
affected by class participation--I will watch out for men dominating
the discourse and women letting them do it?"  Why don't WS profs have
someone video their classes?  Why don't WS profs have days where women
do all the talking and men do all the listening as an exercise in
developing underused conversational skills?  Why don't WS profs invite
male feminists to speak to their classes?  Why don't WS profs invite
couples working on egalitarian partnerships and marriages to talk to
their classes?  It seems to me that there are many creative and *honest*
ways to handle these situations.
 
Sex segregated classes will not undermine patriarchy.  We will NEVER be
able to challenge the system until we stop tiptoeing around the issue
of male domination in classroom discourse.  For all her outspoken
"elemental" radicalism, Mary Daly is tiptoeing around the issue.  I see
no reason for WS profs to play games with their students on this crucial
topic.  If some students drop out because they can't take the candor and
don't want to do the work, tough.  Math, engineering, and computer
science classes also have high dropout rates--and largely for the same
reasons.
 
Joanne Callahan
jmcalla1   AT   airmail.net
 
P.S.  Yes, I have a message for Daphne Patai.  Your diatribe to me was
completely misguided and off-the-mark.  These two "progressive" men were
very mean to me. Daphne, society does not begin and end with the
individual.  As an interdependent species, we humans are predisposed to
form social systems.  Daphne, stop denying that patriarchy exists.  In
every single post I've read from you, I see that same ole liberal
individualistic mindset.  Liberal individualism will not eradicate
sexism or any other ism.  BTW, I will not send you any private posts.  I
can't take your criticisms seriously because you refuse to see the
obvious--as of 1999, we are still in a patriarchy.  Yes, there has been
progress and there has been change.  But it's not half as great as you
think.
===========================================================================

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Joan Korenman wrote:
 
>         I have no easy answers to David's thoughtful and thought-provoking
> questions.  It seems to me, though, that just as it's wrong to bar women
> from the classroom out of fear that they will distract men, so too is it
> wrong to bar men because they may inhibit women.  Such exclusions are based
> on sweeping and often inaccurate generalizations about "men" and "women."
> (This is not to deny that some women may distract some men, and some men
> may inhibit some women--and also that some men may distract other men, and
> some women may inhibit other women.)
 
Such exclusions are definitely based on sweeping and inaccurate
generalizations. If Daly REALLY believes that women-only classes at a
co-educational institution provide women with a "safe haven" to learn and
express themselves, she's stuck in the 1980s. Several studies in the area
of race relations have found, for example, that prejudice and
discrimination are most likely to decrease when white and black employees
have to work together on projects, have to interact to solve problems, and
get to know and respect each other in attaining a goal.
 
Similarly, I don't see how--in 1999 and even if it were legal to do so--any
 instructor in any college class can or would want to justify
sex-segregated classes if our job is to "educate." And I've seen no
evidence that women in WS or most other classes  need "protection" from
male students. The "hard sciences" where female students are in a minority
may be an exception because (according to a lot of studies), they are
often steamrolled by male students and ignored by faculty. In most
courses, however, if an instructor can't control a blathering, uninformed
student (male or female) who hogs the floor and tries to sabotage a class,
the instructor, not the student, is guilty.
 
I see the Daly controversy (assuming that what I've read is relatively
accurate) as a personal power issue rather than a WS issue. Daly appears
to be a prolific and influential scholar who has done pretty much what she
wanted over the years. And, it's much easier to take a stand at age 70 and
ignore Title IX than it is at age 40 on ANY issue--legal or illegal. Not
my idea of a "martyr," a "heroine," or a role model.
 
Daphne Patai wrote:
"It doesn't matter whether the male student in question is a conservative
or a this or a that. Except for prerequisites or other requirements
relating to the course work, professors cannot exclude students from their
classes."
 
I agree entirely. We have students in our classes from a broad spectrum of
political and ideological perspectives. If students meet the
prerequisites, they have a right to enroll in a course. In fact, if I were
to advocate exclusion (and I'm not), the students who take most of my time
are not men but those who aren't prepared for college work, are not
motivated to do the work, or who spend more time in my office and
elsewhere continuously whining and complaining that "she requires too
much" than they do at the library or reading the course materials. This
group is a minority, mercifully, but they take up considerably more of my
time than students, male or female, who try to "disrupt" a class,
proselytize, or attempt to inhibit womens' intellectual space.
 
niki
---------------------------------------------------------
Nijole (Niki) Benokraitis, Professor of Sociology
University of Baltimore, 1420 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201
Fax: 410-837-6051; Voicemail: 410-837-5294; nbenokraitis   AT   ubmail.ubalt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================

[Identity masked] asked:
 
>If David were to refuse enrollment to a female student in one of his
>philosophy classes, would that be legal? What's the difference?
 
Speaking as a graduate student I'd say, the difference is the hierarchical
order this society is still based upon, namely patriarchy. Yes, there is a
difference. I strongly believe in the necessity of spaces for women
students to develop certain ideas (feminist or others) independent of what
men have to say to that. You get to know this in all the other classes you
have to attend. In my understanding sexism (discrimination based on the sex
one person belongs to) is always to be seen in the light of the
socio-political order and men can't be subject to sexism in this society in
the sense that they can't be discriminated against since they hold the
dominant position in the relation of the sexes.
 
>Discrimination is discrimination. If I'm teaching lesbian and gay
>studies, do I have the right to refuse admission to students who won't
>come out to me?
 
Yes, I do think so. Why not let someone do this (teach a homosexuals-only
class)? Heterosexuals are everywhere else always present and dominant.
There is no need to protect their rights. I always thought this is the
principle of affirmative action.
 
Can someone teaching Native American studies refuse
>admission to students who aren't Native Americans?
 
Yes, I believe any minority should be giving the right to do this. I know
there is a enormous discourse around I'm totally neglecting here. I'm aware
of the simplicity of my arguement. But I just don't think we left all this
already behind us. At least not in this country, in my university, and
surely not in most of US universities, I'd assume. How post-whatever do you
have to get to neglect the fact that there is a difference in what Mary
Daly does and in what the law you cited would say to that (I suspect this
law was originally designed to support women's rights to participate). Yes,
I do think there also is a legitimate claim to the right to women's only
classes. Especially in state funded schools (I'm not talking about *right*
in a judicial sense here, but in a political).
 
I guess I am just shocked about how easily many of you dismiss what I
thought were basic feminist demands. Again, I'm arguing from the position
of a student here (American studies, media studies), who has to face sexism
in classes daily. Who is silenced almost any time she tries to bring the
feminist perspective in in a *regular* class. And who learned and
participated most in women-only classes. I have not had Kirsten's
experience of a Prof/lecturer appologizing to me after class or giving me
special assignments, and this is not what I would want. I would want to
have issues discussed from a feminist perspective in class, not out of
class. Maybe someone could help me out here, I thought the feminist idea
was to change laws to make them work for your goals and not to bend to
their paradoxical logic or effects.
 
Martina Allendorf
Freie Universitaet Berlin
arizona   AT   zedat.fu-berlin.de
===========================================================================

I believe you will find academia full of tactics similar to those used
against Dr. Daly.  In 21 years in academia I have found that adminstrators
are cowards when it comes to being honest about their wishes.  Some
faculty members, while tenured, lose their ability to teach well, whether
this be a function of age, changing mental processes or whatever.  But,
rather than address the real issues with that professor and perhaps offer
an honest buyout retirement package, I have found administrators do such
things as mess with their schedules, encourage them to design new classes
and then give them the pertetual run around, make appointments at
difficult times for the faculty and then cancel at the last
minute..obviously inconveniencing the faculty ...all in an effort to
subversively force the faculty to retire out of frustration.  I work at a
unionized campus so money can't be withheld but I know other campus make
certain the "problematic" faculty doesn't get any raise.  Personally, I'm
sick of seeing this happen.  We need to demand that adminstrations deal
with people in a straight forward manner.  What happens when it's out turn
to be treated like this?
 
Carolyn Bell
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
===========================================================================

        I've been mulling over the various responses to this issue. My
first response to the Daly story was to think, No, she can't do that. It's
illegal. But some of the posts have given me to cause to think that this is
perhaps a more open question--legally & practically--than I first did. Some
questions/issues this discussion has raised for me are:
 
        1. Why is it legal (or right) to have separate sports teams for men
and women, but not classes? This assumption seems to presuppose that bodies
and minds are very separate entities, that sports engages or primarily
engages or only engages bodies, while academic classes do so re: minds.
(I'm not positing this as a rhetorical question; I would appreciate
discussion--particularly from someone who's studied the law--on why this is
different.)
 
        2. Someone raised the issue of an analogous situation, a
class that only admitted Native American students. As someone who teaches
Native American literature (and many Native students), I have often thought
about the value to Native students of being able to take a Native-only
class. In my present class, roughly a third of the students are native, a
handful identify as mixed-blood, and the rest of the students are white.
Now I am going to make some sweeping generalizations, which I hope everyone
on this list will understand as a space-clearing gesture, in order to say
some things briefly as this medium requires. The class is dominated by a
young white man, who talks increasingly more, not less & has lately taken
to interrupting people. The women in the class--white & Indian--are
particularly silenced. (And yes, I have taken some steps to curtail this &
will take more drastic ones in the near future.) I think that students who
come from Western cultural traditions are so immersed in values that
privilege aggression, particularly aggression couched in what is known as
"speaking up for oneself," that it is extremely difficult for them to even
notice that others in the room may be operating within a different value
system, that is, that one NEVER interrupts, that one speaks with few words
and only when one has something important to say, and that direct
disagreement with another person is frowned upon. Let me be clear about
something: this young man is not a jerk; he is someone who clearly is
looking for a different way of being in the world. Yet he silences the very
people who could best teach him, and the whole class (like America is for
his people) is increasingly about him. I know that my post may imply a
monolithism to NA cultures that is historically and presently
inaccurate--and I don't intend to do that. The notion of A women's culture,
with its own modes of communicating, is exceedingly more problematic. Yet
those of us who teach know from first hand experience (if we've bothered to
keep our eyes open) of the many ways women students are silenced, and many
of us know from reading the research  how widespread and insidious this is.
Just as the Indian students in my classes are able or willing to engage in
Western rhetorical styles to different degrees (in part because of the
degree to which their own backgrounds are mixed), women students also
differ in their engagement in rhetorical strategies we might associate more
with male students. Several years ago, I was unprepared in an all-female
feminist theory class for a class bully; she was white and had a great deal
of class privilege & her bullying was particularly hard on the women of
color in the class.

        I do not mean to beg the question by raising this issue, but can we
say for certain who counts as a member of a certain group? If it's modes of
discourse we're privileging, rather than sports-team biology, how do we
insist upon that in the classroom? Should a student's grade be affected by
his/her unwillingness to engage those discursive modes? Could s/he be asked
to leave the class? This issue has been raised regarding "disruptive"
students, but what about students who simply take up more than their fair
share?
 
        Finally, I want to thank those of you on the list who showed me
that this is a much more complex issue than I'd originally thought. In
these, the backlash years, where complex issues are dealt with in
nano-second long soundbytes, thoughtfulness is like a long, cool drink of
water.
 
Janet
 
--
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Janet McAdams
English, Women's Studies, Native American Studies
University of Oklahoma
760 Van Vleet Oval, Rm. 113
Norman, OK 73019-0240
email: jmcadams   AT   ou.edu
===========================================================================

Minority status (even if an accurate category) does not trump basic rights.
 Neo-Nazis are a minority in the U.S.  Should they be allowed their special
classes too, with no interference or challenge from the "mainstream?"  It
seems clear to me that fairly quickly such an argument would have to center
on a distinction between those who have the right ideas and those who have
the wrong ideas, with the assumption always being that feminists (certain
feminists only? certain views within feminism?) constitute the "right"
ideas and that a contrary view - say one that promoted male-dominance or
traditional views of women - is the "wrong" idea and therefore not entitled
to its separate "safe" classroom space.  Such a view, however, contravenes
basic civil rights in this country and, once adopted, could quickly lead us
to an official educational orthodoxy--the sort of thing that would have
prevented women's studies from emerging to begin with.
    As for women's disadvantaged position in universities, there is a lot
of evidence to the contrary, evidence that indicates women's astonishing
success in higher education (e.g., better grades, higher graduation rates,
etc.).  On this subject, see Judith Kleinfeld's article about the AAUW
report "Gender Gaps,"  in the Women's Freedom Network Newsletter, Nov/Dec
1998.  Yes, I know, people on this list will disagree with me and one
another as to what counts as the best evidence/ indicators.  But such
disagreement is exactly what makes it necessary for education to be broad
and non-doctrinaire, not based on identity politics and advance notice of
students' or teachers' positions.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai   AT   spanport.umass.edu
===========================================================================

Hey folks,
 
[Another WMST-L participant] and I have had a brief private exchange where I indicated my
support for her (and David Austin's) thoughtful responses to the Daly
question.  However, I've since read the phrase "discrimination is
discrimination" in a few posts and I'm prompted to share some thoughts more
publicly.
 
Specifically I'd like to make reference to Canadian federal legislation
that includes wide-ranging anti-discrimination language (probably similar
to the ill-fated ERA in the US) but has this very cool subclause that
*allows* discriminatory behaviour if the discrimination is aimed to
ameliorate existing inequalities. I'm sure some of my Canadian colleagues
on this list can improve upon this description, and share some of the many
ways this legislation has actually been used to hurt those it was designed
to help. Still, it is this legislation that allows women's shelters, for
example, to receive federal funding even though they exclude men.
 
Not all types of discrimination are the same it seems to me, and I'm
grateful that the Canadian legislators were able to see this too. (As do
the few remaining state legislators who allow state universities to use
variables such as sex, race and geography in the attempt to even out
previously sexist and racist admission rates -- how does Title IX conflict
with these "affirmative action" admission policies, I wonder?).
 
It's not obvious to me, at this point, that Daly's discriminatory behaviour
is the best way to ameliorate existing inequalities (though David's post
goes along way to supporting this).  I appreciate the more creative (and
difficult) solutions proposed this morning by Joanne Callahan, minus the
post-script.
 
Thoughts from a transplanted Canadian, on a rainy morning in Philadelphia.
 
***************************************************************
Sharyn Clough, Ph.D.
Dept. of Philosophy & Religion        email: clough   AT   rowan.edu
Rowan University            wk. ph. 609-256-4539
Glassboro, NJ 08028            hm. ph. 215-232-2310
***************************************************************
===========================================================================

At 11:49 28/02/99 -0500, Daphne Patai wrote:
 
>Minority status (even if an accurate category) does not trump basic rights.
> Neo-Nazis are a minority in the U.S.  Should they be allowed their special
>classes too, with no interference or challenge from the "mainstream?"
 
"Minority", here, has a highly specific meaning -- hence its application
to women -- implying disadvantage etc..  There is a classic article by
Helen Hacker on the application of the term to women; I'll try to
get a cite, and make the argument properly.
The usage poses the problem that The Flat Earth Society is a minority under
one usage and one not, that the neo-Nazis and the Flat-Earthers may well
contain members of minorities in the non-statistical sense, and that we
should remember that, and, that there are disadvantaged _majorities_,
too.  But I simply accept the usage now, as its meaning is clear.
 
>on a distinction between those who have the right ideas and those who have
>the wrong ideas, with the assumption always being that feminists (certain
>feminists only? certain views within feminism?) constitute the "right"
>ideas and that a contrary view - say one that promoted male-dominance or
>traditional views of women - is the "wrong" idea and therefore not entitled
>to its separate "safe" classroom space.  Such a view, however, contravenes
>basic civil rights in this country
 
Different countries have different views of basic civil and human rights.
The US is the only remaining "civilized" country that retains the death
penalty, a sentence singularly capable of depriving an innocent person of
all rights.  The UK has withdrawn the remnants of that policy -- last carried
out decades ago; the relevant offences have either not occurred, been
dealth with by means of prison terms, or (in the case of offences against
the monarchy) been ignored.  They were withdrawn formally, to accord
with EEC legislation on human rights.  It is for that reason, too,. though also
because of the commitment of our Home Secretary, that the Government
has reintroduced the Bill to equalize gay and heterosexual ages of consent,
stopped by the House of Lords last year.
 
But until recently, it could be said that there was among the population here,
as there is in the US now, a majority who opposed homosexuality (now,
32-36 per cent of the population do), and of course that could lead to
the assumption to which you point, that the anti-gay case was always
correct.
 
I have no wish to defend Daly's decision.  I do want to challenge your
assumption that the view that women should not advance,. should
indeed retreat, lacks its own protected private and public spaces.
 
There is one form of female-only educational segregation I do defend,
one that has always implied the right of men to retain their own
segregated establishments: that is the kind seen at Oxford and
Cambridge, where a couple of women's colleges are standing against
the trend to co-education there, to give women a "space" to study
together.  (Yes, it follows that all-male colleges could exist too;
they can.)  The decision is a costly one, as the female colleges
were the poorer ones, and they run the risk of being unable to
fund their fellowships (open to men and women) adequately.
I am in two minds on the issue but I do defend their right to take it.
 
FYI, in both mixed and single-sex colleges now, men tend to be appointed
to fellowships in a far greater number than women; this is not surprising
given that until fairly recently women were very much a minority among
Oxford and Cambridge,  who tend to appoint almost entirely from
within their alumni.  It is also, though, a  combination of decisions to adopt
co-educational status, and our Equal Opportunities laws.  At least one
(former) Head of a once women only College said that she regretted the move.
 
> and, once adopted, could quickly lead us
>to an official educational orthodoxy--the sort of thing that would have
>prevented women's studies from emerging to begin with.
 
I doubt that men would suddenly find themselves unable not avoid
the study of women!  If you are more concerned with the views
put forward by teachers, then I suggest the answer is for the US,
which can better afford it, to adopt our system of double blind
marking and external examining.
 
I am as concerned about the notion of national curricula as you,
but here and in the rest of Europe there is and has been a greater
willingness to legislate to prevent the expression of views that harm
others, though the venue of their expression is crucial, as it was
for Mill.
 
>    As for women's disadvantaged position in universities, there is a lot
>of evidence to the contrary, evidence that indicates women's astonishing
>success in higher education (e.g., better grades, higher graduation rates,
>etc.).
 
There is I believe one crucial sticking point here, and that comes either
-- depending on the measure -- just before the attaining of a first degree
or between that and a doctorate.
The first degree measure that shows women performing less well
relative to men is the equivalent of your summa, increasingly essential
for, but not guaranteeing, funding fir graduate work in social science
and the arts and humanities.
-- also we have changed assessment methods at the high school level;
some Universities, and some Departments here, have too.  Mine
retains traditional examination work, though assessed essays also,
as external examiners have asked for that.
 
  On this subject, see Judith Kleinfeld's article about the AAUW
>report "Gender Gaps,"  in the Women's Freedom Network Newsletter, Nov/Dec
>1998.
 
Is there a url?
 
> Yes, I know, people on this list will disagree with me and one
>another as to what counts as the best evidence/ indicators.  But such
>disagreement is exactly what makes it necessary for education to be broad
>and non-doctrinaire, not based on identity politics and advance notice of
>students' or teachers' positions.
 
We have another way of guarding against that, as I have said.
Judy Evans, York, UK
JudyEvans   AT   feminist.freeserve.co.uk
probably using speech recognition software: please overlook "typos"
jae2   AT   york.ac.uk
===========================================================================

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 nbenokraitis   AT   UBmail.ubalt.edu wrote:
 
>In most courses, however, if an instructor can't control a blathering,
uninformed
> student (male or female) who hogs the floor and tries to sabotage a class,
> the instructor, not the student, is guilty.
 
        Niki brings up a point here that has been very much on my mind
throughout this discussion. What are our responsibilities as educators in
all this? Isn't it part of our task to model ways of discussing, of
engaging, with one another in civil and sensitive ways, attuned as best we
can be to our own positions and those of the students? If a man is
dominating discussion and silencing others in class, isn't  it the
professor's responsibility to curb this behavior? And in doing so, isn't
she also sending a powerful and effective message to the other students in
the class? And we need to remember that now very often isn't just a
male/female issue, this question of silencing and domination. To assert in
any way that it is not only reinforces a  model of masculine power as so
overwhelming in itself that we need to preserve ourselves from it by
hiding, but one that is often out-of-wack with the ways in which power, in
classrooms and out, wo rks along lines not only of gender but also of race
and class.
 
Sara Murphy
===========================================================================

The entire issue of discrimination is a complex one, in part due to the
different concepts to which the word can refer.  Discrimination, in the
original and (according to at least some dictionaries, such as the
American Heritage College and Oxford English dictionaries) supposedly
primary sense, means to distinguish, to notice differences, to be able
to tell things apart.  This is a skill which is critically important for
survival, and which has been privileged in at least Western culture,
particularly in our penchant for categorization.
 
It's a skill that is thus taught early to children, and has been, in
fact, a central feature in _Sesame Street_  ("One of these things is
not like the other . . . One of these things just doesn't belong . . .").
 
Of course, _Sesame Street_ (insofar as I've watched it over the years)
hasn't to my knowledge applied this concept to people, at least not using
that song.  If anything, when it's addressed differences among people,
it's celebrated the differences as positive, as distinguishing characteristics
that can make people unique and special (I'm thinking particularly of the
relatively recent spot involving Maya Angelou and some children--and
probably at least one Muppet--singing a song about their names).
 
_Sesame Street_ has taken this approach of celebrating differences because
the common understanding of "discrimination" in the late 20th c. U.S.
(at least) has been the sense that dictionaries list as the secondary
or tertiary meanings:  to treat negatively or unfavorably or to abridge
rights or privileges on the basis of prejudgments (prejudice) that
involves oversimplification and/or overgeneralization in reducing the
complexity of a person to just one characteristic of difference (skin
color, ethnic/national/racial heritage, socio-economic class, sex,
sexual orientation, religion, neighborhood of origin . . .), and then
applying problematic overgeneralized assumptions about that group to
the person.
 
Please pardon me for starting off so theoretically, and for repeating
things which are so obvious to most, if not all, of us, but I used it as
preparation for giving a shot at an answer to Janet McAdams' very valid
(and non-rhetorical) question: "Why is it legal (or right) to have
separate sports teams for men and women, but not classes?"
 
I agree with Janet that "This assumption seems to presuppose that bodies
and minds are very separate entities, that sports engages or primarily
engages or only engages bodies, while academic classes do so re: minds."
Now, I have no formal legal training or professional experience (though
I've done a lot of reading, particularly in relation to rhetorical theory
and to violence against women), but as I understand Title IX, it
prohibits the sports discrimination (in the second sense, obviously)
against women in U.S. education that has prevented women from participating
in interscholastic sports and thus being excluded from an "industry" that
has provided such significant benefits as scholarships and ultimate
employment networking (at the least).
 
    I don't have the text of Title IX in front of me, so I can't
    remember whether it speaks to only women, but to other
    protected classes as well.  "Protected classes" is a term
    much more appropriate that "minorities" first, because
    women are not a minority in at least the U.S. and second,
    because groups that are minorities but that are reflective
    primarily or solely of ideological stances (such as the
    Neo-Nazis, militia movement groups, certain apparently
    religious groups/cults, KKK)--ideological stances which
    are clearly directed as threats against other social/
    political entities.  To question whether such groups
    should be allowed special classes, implying a parallel
    between them and groups identified as protected classes
    because of a history of prejudice based on physical
    characteristics, origin, and/or religious beliefs that
    do not have an avowed goal of domination, control, and
    destruction, is a false analogy.
 
    Of course, the criteria used to define a group as a
    protected class (and which class of people gets to make
    that determination) is a complex and sometimes problematic
    issue, and the fact that prejudicial discrimination sometimes
    involves multiple factors complicates the issue even more
    as do the particular contingencies of a situation (eg.,
    women as protected class in many if not most math/science/
    technology classrooms in relation to women in one particular
    scientific classroom--nursing; the treatment of a white woman
    in the middle class of apparent European origin in relation
    to a woman of apparent African and/or Hispanic heritage
    living in poverty).
 
Back specifically to the sports issue:  the only "co-ed" (interesting
term, in the context of Janet's question) sports teams I've seen
(and my exposure may be limited) are in pre-high school intramural
and sometimes interscholastic sports, as well as in some extracurricular
sports as competitive swimming, t-ball, recreational (but not "travelling")
soccer, and some basketball, ice hockey, and baseball.
 
In fact, how many physical education classes from at least middle school
and up are co-ed, if any?  If in fact P.E. classes do not have to be
co-ed (or perhaps *cannot* be co-ed), how different might this situation
be from segregation of academic classes?  The mind-body distinction that
Janet astutely pointed out, a distinction that has served as the basis
of Western philosophy, Christian doctrine and practices, secular practices
in virtually all areas of Western civilization (if not all), and particularly
practices that have discriminated against, demonized, and persecuted
people on the basis of their sex, religion, and race.
 
I'll note that of course I have also been making certain generalized
assumptions, because like Janet I recognize that generalizations (within
bounds) are sometimes necessary as "a space-clearing gesture" to
facilitate greater efficiency of communication.  The problem is over-
generalizing to the point of monolithic proportions, which I certainly
try to avoid but which I can fall into (sometimes without realizing it,
since our own status, especially if it's privileged in one or more ways,
may make it more difficult to see when we're overgeneralizing).
 
What I've said here also at least partially addresses one of Janet's other
questions:  "can we say for certain who counts as a member of a certain
group"?
 
This question is also relevant to another issue which has been taken for
granted as a given in at least most posts I've seen, but which seems
to be more complex:  the issue of pre-requisites.
 
In the community college where I teach, the current president (at least,
as well as some faculty) has taken the stand that pre-reqs. are not
legally enforcible.  Can we legally bar someone from registering in a
class (say, calculus) if that person hasn't taken the pre-calc. or
algebra class(es) the department requires?  Presumably, pre-reqs.
have a solid ethical and rational basis:  how can someone who doesn't
have knowledge of pre-calc/algebra pass a calc. class?  Is it ethical
to take this person's money anyway?  Is it fair to the other students
who have the background necessary to understand the concepts covered in
the course if one without that background constantly takes up class
time with basic algebraic questions, preventing the class from being
able to adequately cover the material in the course?  To what extent
is the instructor, or the tutoring center, required to devote extra
time outside of the class to bring that person up to speed?
 
Every semester, particularly in composition classes, I have to face the
problem of people who do not meet the pre-reqs (adequate language skills
as measured by a placement test) insisting on staying in the class.
While I'm trying to cover the rhetorical principles that apply to the
kind of writing required in the academic environment, I have to spend
countless hours and energy dealing with too much writing that is
unintelligible due to an inability to grasp the concept of basic English
sentence structure, of verb tense, and of other elementary language
issues.  And that's in addition to those who, because of inadequate
preparation in general or for college (because of the effect of poverty
on their school system, because of having graduated from high school or
gotten their G.E.D.s long, long ago, or because of a limitation of their
cognitive ability to succeed in an academic environment), do not know
how to develop a thought, do not know how to logically organize their
developed thoughts, and who have never apparently done any sustained
thinking beyond a surface level on many, if any, subjects.
 
So, I tear my hair out, the students whom I could help to develop their
writing further just cannot get optimum help from me, and those who don't
belong in that class end up failing it.  Yet I can't legally force them
out.  I *do* make a strong and probably intimidating statement in the
very first class, making clear that those who do not have the prerequisites
have a slim to no chance of even passing, that I do *not* provide any
extra help to those who do not have the pre-req., and that I have the
reputation of being a hard marker.  It does "scare" some out, but I know
that occasionally it also scares those (who may be overly-conscientious
or riddled with self-doubt) for whom this course *is* appropriate.
 
However, I'm also one who has occasionally "bent" (brushed away) the
pre-req for a course I was teaching because I had evidence that the
student *did* have the necessary background to be able to handle the
course, even though she/he had not jumped through the formal you-must-
have-had-such-and-such-course hoop we've set up.  In these cases I was
definitely discriminating, using my judgment to determine that despite
not having the credentials required, I saw that the student had the
background/ability to handle the course without any negative effect on
the rest of the class.
 
So why might I let one and not another?  Why don't I see my role (as
some administrators and students do) as having to spend whatever time
outside the classroom in personalized help for students, whether they
have the pre-req or not?  To what extent should I be sympathetic to
the fact that the student may be refusing to meet the pre-req. because
her/his parent ordered her/him not to enroll in any course that was
remedial and that wouldn't count towards the program requirements?
To what extent should I be sympathetic to students whose funding sources
will not support them beyond a four-semester limit (for a community
college) or will not pay for the remedial courses they so desperately
need?  A lot of these students are in protected classes.
 
It's a troubling complex issue, one for which I'd be interested to hear
responses but for which I don't necessarily expect them (because I did
set these up as rhetorical questions).
 
Thanks for reading all this.
 
Connie Ostrowsk
ostroc   AT   rpi.edu (alum account)
===========================================================================

List Members,
 
While I disagree with Daly's decision to exclude men from classes, my
point is primarily on the method Boston College is using to get Mary
to retire. To me, it is just another harrassment by them to get rid of
the "aging radical."
 
This issue is very dear to me - agism - because I will be 50 years old
when I receive my PhD and I doubt that I will be in the first cut of
candidates for teaching jobs when I do graduate. I am also radical and
controversial. (It gets more intense with age and I like it.)
  
I also wonder if Daly is fighting this "just for the fight." It would
be great to have her side explained on this list.
 
Tess
 
University of Denver
tpierce   AT   du.edu
===========================================================================

After reading this morning's posts on the Mary Daly subject, I'd like to
add a few things. I hope you can all bear with me. I'll try to keep them
short. I probably won't be successful!
 
First, it seems that we are confusing some things here about context.
Surely there is a difference, and I hope that everyone would likely
acknowledge it, between an "ideal" world--one that revolves around the
very legitimate realms of theory and ideas--and one that is "real."
Perhaps having one foot in academe and the other in business gives me a
different perspective on this, since I operate in both, simultaneously.
We have to operate in a "real" world when we are taking student tuition
money (especially in public institutions). That "other" world--the one
where we theorize and come up with creative and innovative solutions to
real problems--can often affect that "real" world. Thank goodness.
That's why we have women's studies classes now!
 
Some have voiced their concerns that women should be allowed safe spaces
in which to learn, and that women-only classes are a way to do that. I
don't doubt that this is absolutely true in some contexts, and probably
desirable. I would love to be able to have a woman-only class. Who
wouldn't? Even if only to see what it would be like! But at the same
time, is this the _only_ way to create a safe space? What does the
practice of sex-segregation teach the women about how the world really
works? And how to make their way in it? Patriarchy exists out there in
the "real" world, folks, believe me. Just try being a woman--and a
lesbian on top of that--and run a women's/lesbian business in the
"straight" world. It is extremely difficult. We need to teach women how
to operate in this world without sacrificing themselves. Teach them how
to break out of that model of either "liking" men, or being "like" them.
 
I raised the issue of limiting access to Native American classes to
Native American students, or gay and lesbian studies classes to gay and
lesbian students as a way of asking questions about doing the same for
women students. Even in the face of what can probably be a positive
experience for many women students--having women-only classes--I cannot
honestly imagine a situation where it would be acceptable or even
desirable to limit enrollment to any particular group. This kind of
exclusion can be abused, easily. And no, I would not want to limit a
class to gay and lesbian students, because there would be very few who
would sign up, as it is still not acceptable, or safe, even (and
especially) on many university and college campuses to be out. Besides,
many students who take gay and lesbian studies are not gay. Why turn
them away? They're interested in something they know little about. Teach
them! And then there are those who may be struggling with their
sexuality.
 
These issues of segregation by race or gender or ethnicity or whatever
are just the kinds of issues that make the boards of regents hopping
mad, and ready to eliminate classes in the multicultural curriculum. And
though I don't like regent politics (most are painfully ignorant of the
real issues at stake) they are correct in insisting that classes be open
to all students. Classes are not meant to be private clubs. (Please
don't hit me with flames or pummel me with theories for that comment.
You know what I'm saying!)
 
Probably one thing that we aren't pausing to consider or acknowledge
carefully is the fact that most women's studies classes are already
nearly women-only--by default. And why is that? Because most
college-aged men wouldn't be caught dead in one! The exceptions are
infrequent, at best. If anyone on this list has had a women's studies
class that has enrolled a higher percentage than 25% male in a class--if
that much--I'd be surprised. In a class of 20 students, have you ever
seen five men? I'll bet not.
 
As some have pointed out this morning, there are plenty of disruptive
students who aren't male--privilege and the unpleasant behaviors it
engenders (pardon that pun again) isn't always limited to the male
members of the class (no pun intended there). When I suggested that we
adopt a more radical approach--and that having those men enroll in the
classes they want to enroll in be part of that "agenda," I thought to
myself, "why not change the format of the class so that it favors the
women students? Create structures that allow women to speak, that allow
everyone to have an equal voice. What's the harm in that? If our
adherence to patriarchal and hierarchical frameworks of teaching--like
letting the most aggressive students dominate the
discussion--disadvantage those whose voices are being silenced, then
change it! Use some of those methods outlined in books like _Women's
Ways of Knowing_ or _The Feminist Classroom_. Invent some new
structures. Just because you allow men in the class doesn't mean that
you have to throw your "radical" feminist principles out the window!
 
I liked Joanne Callahan's suggestions for ways to make the classroom
environment more equitable for all students. Add to that an invitation
to some conflict resolution specialists to come to class and talk about
constructive dialoguing. Have the students use a talking stick during
discussions ... if you're not holding the stick, you can't speak. That
way each person gets to talk and say what she or he needs to say. Focus
on the relational possibilities that a feminist framework can create. Do
that and you'll be sending all the students away with something they'll
likely never get in any other classroom--a really deep appreciation of
how to listen! If they feel they're being heard, they'll be much more
opening to listening and hearing others. And isn't that what we all
want? Just to be heard?
===========================================================================

Constance wrote:  "Back specifically to the sports issue:  the only
"co-ed" (interesting
term, in the context of Janet's question) sports teams I've seen
(and my exposure may be limited) are in pre-high school intramural
and sometimes interscholastic sports, as well as in some extracurricular
sports as competitive swimming, t-ball, recreational (but not
"travelling") soccer, and some basketball, ice hockey, and baseball.
In fact, how many physical education classes from at least middle school
and up are co-ed, if any?  If in fact P.E. classes do not have to be
co-ed (or perhaps *cannot* be co-ed), how different might this situation
be from segregation of academic classes?"
 
Readers might be interested in knowing that at least in some jr and sr
high schools, if a sport is only offered for boys, and female student
wants to participate in that sport, the school must provide accomodations
for the female student.  Our daughter wanted to participated in high
school swim team, and because of Title IX we were able to persuade the
high school swim team to accomodate her on the team.  This meant keeping
women's locker room available, making special accomodations for traveling
to meets elsewhere if needed, and assuring a woman in the locker room when
needed, as well as assuring that her legitimate rights to participate at
all levels were met.  Two years later, another high school which had a
women's swim team, but no pool, used our daughter's high school pool for
practice, and were able to include our daughter on that team if she wished
to do so.  Since that coach was a coach who had trained our daughter in a
different setting, she willingly and eagerly trnasfered to the woman's
team.  There are other instances where high school girls participated in
basketball, football, and track when comparable women's teams were not
provided.
 
PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS -  jacpeace   AT   user3.stritch.edu
 
Peace, Jackie
Jacqueline Haessly  (former email-jacpeace   AT   acs.stritch.edu)   Image Peace!
________________________________________________________________________
 
                          Peacemaking Associates
 
2437 N. Grant Blvd.        Milwaukee, WI            5321O-2941
Phone:  414-445-9736                                Fax:  414-444-7319
________________________________________________________________________
===========================================================================