Uhhh…
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
So, now we’re starting to see the “Alito is racist and sexist!” tactic being tried. It’s starting small, with an article in the Daily Princetonian complaining of his membership in a group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, that is described as “an organization that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence — at times passionately so, too.”
So what was this group’s crime? Reading forward, we discover that, horror of horrors, they were opposed to making Princeton a coeducational institution! Of course, this is described in the article as “opposition to the mere presence of women and minorities at Princeton.”
Because, of course they object to the presence of women because they’re women. That means that Vassar alumnae who were disappointed when, in 1969, the school began admitting men were “sexist,” not just that they didn’t like seeing the character of the institution change. How about these women profiled in Ms. Magazine, protesting the switch to coeducational admissions at their institution, Wells College? I bet they’re all awful sexists too.
While we’re at it, I bet that Harvard’s administration is sexist, as it still awards Radcliffe degrees to its female undergraduates. The horror!
The article is less clear on how minorities come into this, but my suspicion, given the time these changes were happening (1960s-1970s), was that Princton had begun instituting a massive affirmative action program. Those racists, wanting their Ivy League school to continue having merit admissions.
Finally, let’s take a look at the so-called “dirty tricks” that were allegedly committed by this group, and cited as such by the Princetonian:
— In 1973, CAP mailed a letter to parents of freshmen implying that their sons and daughters were living in “cohabitation,” rather than simply coeducational dorms.
“Cohabitation” – “living together.” I seriously doubt that it had acquired the connotation of “living together in the same room” rather than the same structure in 1973. Regardless, their usage is technically correct.
— In 1975, a CAP board member tried to disrupt Annual Giving by writing to alumni in the business community to consider whether their gifts were “being used to undermine, subvert, and otherwise discredit the very businesses which are helping fund private education.”
And what’s wrong with that? I think that too often donors do not realize exactly what their money is being spent on at universities. There’s a reason that I refuse to make alumni contributions to either the law school or the university I attended- I know that they will spend it on programs that I viscerally disagree with. Reminding people that they might want to consider where their money is going when it gets handed over to Princeton sure is underhanded and dirty, isn’t it?
— In 1979, Prospect wrote that Princeton’s athletic program under Bowen was “fast becoming the laughingstock of the whole Ivy League.” In reality, Princeton had the best record in the Ivies.
According to whom? Evaluations, particularly of such things as reputation, are inherently subjective. Consider Brian Leiter’s wildly exaggerated view of the University of Texas School of Law as comparable to NYU and Chicago, as opposed to comparable to Georgetown and UCLA.
However, I will say this: everyone knows that Brown, not Princeton, is the laughingstock of the Ivies. That said, if this is the kind of reasoning being put out by Princeton graduates (the author, a 1976 graduate, also produces such insightful colums as “Animals Suffer a Perpetual ‘Holocaust'”), perhaps they should be characterized as the laughingstock of the whole Ivy League.
(All thanks be to Howard)
“So what was this group’s crime? Reading forward, we discover that, horror of horrors, they were opposed to making Princeton a coeducational institution!”
Formed to keep the women out of Princeton. What a nice guy to have on the court. Then again, didn’t young bill rehnquist go and help frustrate black voters?
actus (ebc508) — 11/23/2005 @ 9:17 am‘“Cohabitation” – “living together.” I seriously doubt that it had acquired the connotation of “living together in the same room” rather than the same structure in 1973. Regardless, their usage is technically correct.’
I don’t know where you get this idea. A quick search on westlaw found common-law marriage cases using it as early as 1921 to mean living together. The term clearly means as a household/family, rather than in a dorm building. What makes you think that cohabitation is a recent term. It sounds rather like a stodgy one. One that the CAP ‘good old days’ types would be using.
actus (ebc508) — 11/23/2005 @ 9:38 amAs a proud alumnus of an all-male high school in Philadelphia, I would fight any efforts to make my high school coed. That doesn’t mean I hate women; I just think my school, which has been single sex since 1851, has something special and don’t want to see the character of the school changed. Attacks like this make me sick to my stomach!!!
Louis Parise (1e9089) — 11/23/2005 @ 10:07 amCommon law marriage isn’t the same as “cohabitation” – do you really think that CAP was arguing that Princeton was forcing its students into common law marriages, actus?
And, actus, do you think that Louis Parise, and the men (and women, as I mentioned in the article) like him, that think that their institutions have something unique in being single-sex, are all awful human beings that should be kept off the Supreme Court for all time?
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/23/2005 @ 10:28 amWell,
That proves it. There’s no doubt now that Judge Alito isn’t fit for the Affirmative Action seat on the Supreme Court.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/23/2005 @ 10:53 am“Common law marriage isn’t the same as “cohabitation” – do you really think that CAP was arguing that Princeton was forcing its students into common law marriages, actus”
No. You misunderstand. I’m showing that the term cohabitation was used as early as the 1920’s to describe what we currently consider ‘shacking up.’ They used the term (along with other factors) to describe common law marriage. That means that the terms cohabitation in the 1970’s definately did not mean a co-ed dorm or apartment building, but instead meant a household/family situation. I don’t know where people get the idea that cohabitation was a 1970’s term that CAP is simply not hip to. If anything I’d say its a stodgy term — the kind that guys who sit around talking about the ‘good ole days’ use.
“And, actus, do you think that Louis Parise, and the men (and women, as I mentioned in the article) like him, that think that their institutions have something unique in being single-sex, are all awful human beings that should be kept off the Supreme Court for all time?”
I think that what was awful about Princetonians keeping women out of Princeton in the 1970s is that they were also keeping women out of an elite male society. I don’t think that awfulness is necessarily around people who keep high schools or other institutions single sex today, because I don’t think that there is that much of a barrier as there was in the 1970’s.
So in a sense I think that the people who wanted to keep their special all male *past* from providing opportunities to the women of the present and future are people who lack some sense of fairness, justice, and social responsibility. People I find too yucky to be on the court.
actus (ebc508) — 11/23/2005 @ 11:12 amWe’ll disagree about cohabitation, because, once again, I don’t think that a fair reading of CAP can be that Princeton was forcing that upon students- perhaps allowing it, but that is not how it is represented in the column.
As for your characterization of it as being to keep “from providing opportunities to the women of the present and future,” I think, once again, that you’re missing the point (shocking) just as the author did.
The purpose of CAP, people like the Save Our School women at Wells College, Louis Parise in the comments, and myself (being opposed to efforts to move my own all-male high school to a coeducational model) is not “damn, we hate (wo)men, and should keep them from getting their hands on all these opportunities!” but “hey, you know, I really like the character and history of my institution, and think that the educational enviroment that the single sex provided was both positive and distinctive, and it is a shame to see that lost and the institution become another faceless and indistinct university.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/23/2005 @ 12:15 pm“We’ll disagree about cohabitation, because, once again, I don’t think that a fair reading of CAP can be that Princeton was forcing that upon students- perhaps allowing it, but that is not how it is represented in the column.”
Princeton wasn’t doing that. CAP was being misleading when they used the term. Or they were just wrong.
“As for your characterization of it as being to keep “from providing opportunities to the women of the present and future,” I think, once again, that you’re missing the point (shocking) just as the author did.”
I know that they wanted to preserve their special uniqueness that princeton had. But the thing is that they’re smart enough to figure what the consequence of this policy is. And that in weighing the interests of present women and the future they preferred to keep their memories of something special over that. And it also wasn’t that special for an elite school to exclude women back then.
” and it is a shame to see that lost and the institution become another faceless and indistinct university.””
If he thinks that letting women into princeton would make it faceless and indistinct then he is a moron and should not be let on the court on that basis. First of all, there are plenty of things left for Princeton to distinguish itself on. Second, and this one I don’t know about, it may have actually been *distinctive* to let women into an elite school at that time, rather than undistinctive.
No. What he wants to do is preserve what he had and his memories of Princeton at the obvious (even if unstated) cost of women having access.
actus (ebc508) — 11/23/2005 @ 12:35 pm“If he thinks that letting women into princeton would make it faceless and indistinct then he is a moron and should not be let on the court on that basis.”
Are you truly arguing that such a fundamental shift in the composition of the student body won’t lose something of the unique identity of the institution?
Are you willing to say that to the face of those women angry that Wells College is about to start admitting men?
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/23/2005 @ 12:56 pm“Are you truly arguing that such a fundamental shift in the composition of the student body won’t lose something of the unique identity of the institution?”
It will lose something. But its not going to make princeton ‘faceless and indistinct.’ Princeton has plenty of distinction.
“Are you willing to say that to the face of those women angry that Wells College is about to start admitting men?”
I have no idea what they have of distinction besides their single-sexness.
actus (ebc508) — 11/23/2005 @ 1:01 pmYou’re being an idiot, as usual. Distinct and distinguished are not the same thing.
Of course Princeton will remain an elite university, and I haven’t argued to the contrary as far as it remaining single-sex. That said, it certainly lost some of its character. Can you really tell me the difference between, say, Penn, Princeton and Cornell, apart from location? That’s the distinctiveness I’m talking about, and it is gone now, while all the schools remain distinguished.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 11/23/2005 @ 1:11 pm“You’re being an idiot, as usual. Distinct and distinguished are not the same thing.”
Whichever. Princeton had both before it allowed women in, and had both after it allowed women in. But no, it was not ‘the same’ as before. There was a fundamental change: They opened up an elite institution — key to making the american elite class — to women.
“Can you really tell me the difference between, say, Penn, Princeton and Cornell, apart from location? That’s the distinctiveness I’m talking about, and it is gone now, while all the schools remain distinguished.”
Penn has the more distinguished Linguistics department, and a pretty good med school too — as well as a pretty popular nursing program. Princeton has the Woodrow Wilson school. Cornell has a hotel management program. They’re different schools, with distinction. They are also all available to men and women.
And like I said, we’re leaving out the possibility that at the time, Princeton may have chosen to go co-ed in order to be distinctive. I don’t know when the other elite schools did.
Lastly, I’m missing out why the alumni care so much. What are they losing? their ‘memories’? Contrast that with the cost of their memories? I can understand they want princeton to remain a top school, a distinguishes school. But I don’t understand why they care whether women get access to it too or not. It just reeks of not wanting to share.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/23/2005 @ 1:50 pmSo Lautenberg & the other Dems overwhelmingly spoke in favor of, and confirmed, Alito well after all this Princeton stuff had already taken place? Guess that makes them racist and sexist, too. My Gawd, they’re everywhere!
ras (f9de13) — 11/23/2005 @ 6:50 pmHillary Clinton’s alma mater (Wellesley) is still all-female.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 11/23/2005 @ 7:26 pmactus
Can you be any more dense or offensive? I see no problems with schools or colleges that want to restrict their student body to male or female.
There are definite advantages for students in single-sex student bodies. Is Vassar a better or worse place after going co-ed? Should anyone actively seeking to attend a single-sex college be forever barred from public life since, according to your logic, it is demonstrative of inherent misogyny/misandry? Well, you had better start a database and taking these names so we can make sure none of them go into law or politics.
Formed to keep the women out of Princeton
Really? Funny thing, my daughters late great-aunt Ann was one of the head librarians at Princeton University Library from 1964-1993. I wonder if she cross-dressed to get the job.
Darleen (f20213) — 11/24/2005 @ 8:28 am“Can you be any more dense or offensive? I see no problems with schools or colleges that want to restrict their student body to male or female.”
The problem I see with the ivies back then doing that is that it helped to keep the women out of the elite ranks of society. Nowadays lots of schools are unproblematically single-sex.
“Really? Funny thing, my daughters late great-aunt Ann was one of the head librarians at Princeton University Library from 1964-1993.”
I’m sure they had women librarians and secretaries. And I’m also sure you know what CAP was keeping women out of.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/24/2005 @ 6:19 pmSo what? Why is it the duty of these institutions to provide “access” to women, minorities, retards, etc. to “society,” even at the cost of their own institutional identities?
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 11/24/2005 @ 7:24 pmActus
You slid right by my link to Scripps College..and very elitewomen’s college in what is labeled the Westcoast Ivy League colleges.
And what makes you think librarians and secretaries have the same educational requirements? (since you seem to be equating the two)
Darleen (f20213) — 11/24/2005 @ 7:46 pm“So what? Why is it the duty of these institutions to provide “access” to women, minorities, retards, etc. to “society,” even at the cost of their own institutional identities? ”
There’s no legal duty. I just think its a yucky thing to not share, to help maintain the male elite society. And makes me think that sort of person that wants to keep that shouldn’t be on the supreme court.
“You slid right by my link to Scripps College..and very elitewomen’s college in what is labeled the Westcoast Ivy League colleges.”
Like I said, many schools are unproblematically single-sex. I don’t think single-sex elite schools are helping to maintain a gender imbalance in elite society today.
“And what makes you think librarians and secretaries have the same educational requirements? (since you seem to be equating the two)”
I’m not equating them. I’m saying they were both ‘at’ princeton. I thikn you know that we’re talking about women being students at princeton, not staff.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/24/2005 @ 9:24 pmI thikn you know that we’re talking about women being students at princeton, not staff.
Certainly I know that, however you seem to have implied an inherent misogyny on the part of CAP and of anyone that would support single-sex studentbodies regardless of the reasonable arguments of the value to the students in question of such a restriction.
Darleen (f20213) — 11/25/2005 @ 11:45 am“Certainly I know that, however you seem to have implied an inherent misogyny on the part of CAP and of anyone that would support single-sex studentbodies regardless of the reasonable arguments of the value to the students in question of such a restriction.”
They can be misogyinsts without minding that women are on the staff at their double-secret all male tree fort that is elite education.
But you haven’t been paying attention if you think i’m implying anyone who supports single sex education is a mysogynist. I’ve said over and over again that single sex schools exist unproblematically today.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/25/2005 @ 11:52 amThe only unproblematic single-sex schools today are (a) seminaries for Catholics and other religions that don’t ordain women), (b) dozens of all-female colleges, including some of the very best, and (c) three all-male colleges that most people have never heard of (Earlham, Hampden-Sydney, and I forget the other one).
There used to be a fourth category, but lawsuits forced The Citadel and VMI to go coed. Apparently single-sex military schools were ‘problematic’. (The fact that VMI is state-supported is a red herring: at the time there were six other single-sex state supported schools in Virginia, five for women and one for men, and no one cared.)
Why is it fair to demand that Princeton (or VMI, for that matter) be coed, while leaving (e.g.) Bryn Mawr unmolested? Apparently because Princeton is a first-rate school, so those who are not accepted cannot easily replicate the experience elsewhere. But so is Bryn Mawr. In fact, judging from alumnae I have known, Bryn Mawr is the best undergraduate college in the U.S. Should it be forced to go coed?
Dr. Weevil (3236a2) — 11/26/2005 @ 3:26 pm“(The fact that VMI is state-supported is a red herring: at the time there were six other single-sex state supported schools in Virginia, five for women and one for men, and no one cared.)”
VMI’s problem wasn’t just state support, but state support for something unique that was only for males. There was no way that women could attend something like a VMI. The state tried to create a womens alternative, but it was not good enough.
“Should it be forced to go coed”
Princeton wasn’t forced. It through its wisdom decided to open that elite institution to women, despite the protestations of some people that didn’t like that. Bryn Mawr? The guys I know who are clamoring to get in there went there on weekends and had all the fun they needed.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/26/2005 @ 5:51 pmWay to evade the issue: I wasn’t recommending Bryn Mawr as a party school, I was observing that I might well have gotten a better education there, but couldn’t, since I’m the wrong gender. Is that a problem? Not particularly, since there are plenty of other places where I could (and did) get a decent one. Of course, the same applies to women and Princeton before it was coed. To put it another way, if Alito had been campaigning to keep women out of all first-rate colleges and universities, that would indeed have been misogynistic. But he wasn’t, was he?
As for VMI, women were already eligible for West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. I believe those schools all give full scholarships. So the only women being shortchanged by VMI’s single-sex status were those seriously interested in military careers who thought the ROTC route was beneath them but weren’t good enough to get into the service academies. The fact remains that you, and many other Americans, find discrimination against men by Bryn Mawr and other schools perfectly acceptable, but not the other way around. That’s blatantly hypocritical.
Dr. Weevil (b7e5ff) — 11/26/2005 @ 6:39 pm“Way to evade the issue: I wasn’t recommending Bryn Mawr as a party school, I was observing that I might well have gotten a better education there, but couldn’t, since I’m the wrong gender.”
I think there are other comparable places acceptable to you — if you still stuck on bryn mawr you’re stuck on going to an all girls school, not a decent school of which there are plenty. But this is not so with Princeton in the 70’s or VMI in the 90’s.
” Of course, the same applies to women and Princeton before it was coed.”
Does it? I don’t think so. How were the other
ivies?
“So the only women being shortchanged by VMI’s single-sex status were those seriously interested in military careers who thought the ROTC route was beneath them but weren’t good enough to get into the service academies.”
Is that who goes to VMI? I never knew.
“The fact remains that you, and many other Americans, find discrimination against men by Bryn Mawr and other schools perfectly acceptable, but not the other way around. That’s blatantly hypocritical.”
Its not hypocritical. Keeping men out of bryn mawr doesn’t keep them out of opportunities the same way that keeping women out of VMI or Princeton does. And with VMI there is the added complication that it was a state school.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/26/2005 @ 7:21 pmFWIW, The Chosen just came out and it’s all about Ivy League admissions in the 20th Century. It has pretty extensive coverage of CAP. One of the things that surprised me is that the alumni were much more upset about admitting women (on an even basis) than they were about early programs to admit blacks on a preferential basis. I think this actually does support the position that the alumni were concerned about the character of the institution.
Gabriel (ab2ab4) — 11/26/2005 @ 8:08 pmNonetheless, it’s not good to get too cozy with CAP. On the one hand, it’s always good to have someone stand athwart history yelling stop, so as to put some burden of proof on change. But on the other hand, old WASP elitism was not a nice thing; even if one can sympathize with opposition to affirmative action and going coed, the naked promotion of strong legacy preferences is repellent. I very much admired that Alito had not been in an eating club, I’m not as keen on this revelation.
Sorry, it’s exactly the same thing. I never said, nor implied, nor is it true, that I would have liked to go to Bryn Mawr because it’s all women. I in fact have found that its alumnae are better-educated than the alumni and alumnae of other schools I have known. Perhaps that has something to do with sample size, but it has nothing to do with gender. (Nor did I discover this until after I had my B.A.)
In any case, my point ought to be clear enough. Alito did not support keeping women out of all first-rate colleges, any more than Bryn Mawr’s policies keep men out of all first-rate colleges. You seem to assume that a women who couldn’t go to VMI was totally screwed, where a man who can’t go to Bryn Mawr is no worse off than if he could. That seems to me to be false. In each case there is a diminution of opportunities, but there are still plenty of ways for a woman to get a military education or a man to get a first-rate small-school liberal arts education.
It’s also worth mentioning that increasing one kind of opportunity decreases another. A woman who prefers to go to a single-sex college (as many still do) has dozens to choose from, some of them state-supported, and some of them of very high quality, while a man has only three, none of them all that selective. Would it really shock the conscience of every decent American if there were still one all-male college in the Ivy League? That is what your criticism of Alito seems to imply, and it seems to me wrong.
Dr. Weevil (b7e5ff) — 11/26/2005 @ 8:20 pm“Alito did not support keeping women out of all first-rate colleges, any more than Bryn Mawr’s policies keep men out of all first-rate colleges. ”
Just his one. What he had, he didn’t want to share. I’m sure he didn’t mind if others shared what they had.
“You seem to assume that a women who couldn’t go to VMI was totally screwed, where a man who can’t go to Bryn Mawr is no worse off than if he could. That seems to me to be false.”
That seems to me to miss out on just how out of the ordinary VMI is — besides its single-sexness. It also misses out on the difference of state support for the institution.
“Would it really shock the conscience of every decent American if there were still one all-male college in the Ivy League? That is what your criticism of Alito seems to imply, and it seems to me wrong.”
It would shock the conscience of enough of the people who make those decisions for that college that they would change.
But note that my criticism of Alito talks about him wanting to keep women out of an elite school int hte 70’s, in a period when those elite schools were helping to make the elite of society single sex. That’s not so much the case now.
actus (c8c1c4) — 11/26/2005 @ 9:33 pm