To the Editor:
We are two of the alumnae of Wilson College who, although we have never met and are thousands of miles and some years apart, have come together to try to convince the administration that taking the “co-ed path” is the wrong one for Wilson. We read with consternation “Armed With Data, a Women’s College Tries a Transformation” (The Chronicle, February 4).
We were dismayed that the article blindly accepted the data put forth by the administration, yet summarily dismissed the concerns of many current students and alumnae. (How many? We don’t know, as Wilson has refused to poll these groups on the question.) The administration of Wilson College has convinced itself that “co-ed is the solution,” and your article apparently sets out to do the same. Merely making mention of the significant opposition by the students and alumnae does not in any way go far enough to mitigate the voice of the administration so clearly present in this article.
The article traces the process of manufactured consensus the administration engaged in while appearing to be open and transparent. “[President Mistick] said from the start that everything was on the table, including coeducation—which, once it was an option, may well have been inevitable.… PowerPoint slide after PowerPoint slide emerged suggesting that if the college did not go coed, no combination of other changes could keep it solvent.” Your article reflects the same relentless focus on Wilson’s “women only” status that has led the administration from the start of their reforms. By initially identifying “women only” as “the problem,” the administration engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy that was calculated to produce the result they wanted as the “only” solution.
Further, the statistic that only 2 to 3 percent of women would choose to go to a women’s college is oft-quoted and extremely misleading; it suggests that 97 or 98 percent of the population are automatically disqualified from the potential pool of applicants. It also suggests that 17-18 year-old girls/women have made up their minds and can’t be persuaded to change them. Anyone with a teenage daughter knows what a fallacy that is. It is also well known that pollsters can produce widely divergent numbers based on how they frame their questions. Wilson and other single-sex colleges have their own unique draws for students. Whether it is the rural location, small size, international mix, beautiful campus, unusual and excellent majors, there is a relatively large pool of interested female potential students, if only they knew about Wilson.
And therein lies the crux of the matter: Many of us are convinced that the problem was and is not Wilson’s status as a women’s college. Rather, the problem was extremely poor marketing and management over a number of years. Adding males to the residential college will not fix that. If Wilson could not compete as one of 45 women’s colleges in the nation, how will she compete as one of thousands in a sea of small, coed, liberal-arts colleges? Over 600 alumnae and supporters signed a recommendation asking the administration and commission to table the coed option for a year or two while trying all of the other options, including aggressively marketing Wilson as a unique women’s college.
Beth Nelson (Wilson College class of 1986) speaks for many of us when she says, “I wasn’t looking for a women’s college and at the time wasn’t completely sold on the idea but I now credit the women’s-college environment for helping to focus and develop my analytical, communication and leadership skills—we each had the opportunity to become thought leaders, to shape our college experience and to take ownership of our education. We were supported and encouraged. We learned to respect and value other women. This experience was invaluable in preparing me to be a respected, valuable, and successful leader, mentor, peer and woman in my professional life and my home life. Never did I feel unprepared to lead or influence my peers. I credit my women’s-college experience for the ease with which I’ve entered and progressed in my careers.”
Finally, many make light of our pleas that Wilson will lose her heart, soul, and mission as a coeducational institution. There is talk of “women centered” education. That would be a pale imitation and no substitute for the intangible essence that will be lost at a Wilson that is coed and not an institution that we can support.
Anne E. Grimes
Mumbai, India
Nicola Walsh
Guelph, Canada
