What a deliciously provocative essay. There is so much one could say in response. I attended all-female Smith College over 40 years ago and very much enjoyed the all-female environment. I felted ‘protected’ which coming from a very dysfunctional family was important to me at the time. I do enjoy men so, but it was lovely to only see them when I wanted to. It made studying that much easier, ie no distraction. That said, Smith has changed dramatically and as educational options for women opened up better minds flocked to the Ives; None of my classmates blew me away intellectually nor were they overflowing in ambition. One of my daughters began at Smith but eventually left for a more rigorous and stimulating Ivy college; she also tired of the lack of intellectual vigor. Also, and this can’t be emphasized enough, too many young women are leaning insanely to the left politically, with little thought other than to be ‘part of the group’ on all-female campuses like Smith and Wellesley. This fact has made campus life particularly odious. There is absolutely no diversity of political thought. There are very few conservative thinkers on these campuses so there is no exposure to other ideas, no way to debate, to spar and to hone one’s intellect. Moreover, the college administrations are equally ‘woke’ so any suggestions to improve the intellectual environment is not entertained - you see, they already have all the answers! My other daughter graduated Harvard and married Harvard, where I believe she had a more rigorous education but nonetheless, she and her buddies also suffer from leftist group-think. I get the feeling students at Harvard gathered together with like-minded people and once groups were ‘set’ there was little mingling of thought thereafter. So, do I think the sexes should be separated? It all depends…separate bathrooms and living accommodations - absolutely! Without a doubt. But today, 40 years or so out of college, I find men to be more interesting to talk to - on the whole. To me they seem less emotional and manipulative, and get into subject matter; I find women want to chatter about more superficial & social things and they want to be constantly affirmed by other women - so, it can be tedious. As Greg Gutfeld says, ‘A sexist would say!’ 😜 And if I had to do college over again, I would have enjoyed a co-ed classroom environment. However, men and women each need separate spaces to gather and Harvard’s push to close down or insert women into all-male clubs on campus was the wrong thing to do. Men need places to be alone without women around and visa versa. So perhaps the way forward, is to offer some separate areas for women and men to informally gather as a start ?
Certainly a well written piece, in the anonymous style of the classical, colonial revolutionary days.
During my school days, I had similar sentiments myself as I often felt that competition for, and distraction by, females did interfere sometimes with the formation of brotherly bonds and friendships. Now, as a 58 year old father of 2 young men and 2 young women, I have a great deal more than my own school days as experience to guide my thinking.
Absolutely, I do agree that separate bathrooms are a must. I am surprised to learn from this piece that they do not exist at Harvard. When I was there, ca. 1985, we males shared entryways with the womenfolk, but the genders (and there were really only two at the time) separated onto different floors of the entryway and used gender-specific bathrooms on their respective floors. My entryway in the yard was Holworthy 4. If I had a vote on the matter, I would at least vote for separate entryways for the respective genders, though I would also give serious thought to a return to the separate housing and/or campuses.
With that said, I would also note that some women do have excellent minds that are not only capable, but actually superior to men, in certain subjects. My own youngest daughter, for example, scored in the 99th percentile on the nationally standardized CogAT test (Cognitive Abilities Test) in fourth grade. Since then, she has consistently demonstrated an affinity for mathematics that exceeds the vast majority of other students, both male and female. Mathematics does not come easily to some people, but my daughter is truly a Math whiz with the potential for high achievement in mathematics and related sciences. A chance to fully develop that potential should not be denied someone like her; nor should the basic human dignity of separate bathrooms at college.
I'll have to think about my classical, colonial nom de plume. But, for now, my real name ...
Harvard College and Radcliffe college essentially merged.
At Columbia, the approach was different. Barnard College remained all female, while Columbia college became co-ed.
In general, a university could offer 4 models:
1. All male
2. Co-ed, run with a male mode of learning
3. Co-ed, run with a female male mode of learning
4. All female
Harvard is claimed here to be #3.
Columbia is #4 plus somewhere between #2 and #3.
One could offer all 4 models in the same university. I'd choose #2. I am blessed to have a wife who graduated from Harvard Business School (#2) and a daughter who is a US Army officer who is in a #2 environment.
It is too bad this article only arrived by email this afternoon. I was talking this morning with Dean Deming and it would have been interesting to get Deming's observations on where Harvard could fit in all of this.
I was riffing off the term "female mode of learning" used in this essay. It was not defined in the essay, but I assume it means things like:
⦿ politeness vs. intellectual vitality Charlie Kirk style
⦿ academic teamwork vs. individual achievement in academics
⦿ everyone gets a trophy vs. rewarding excellence
⦿ endless forgiveness vs. enforcing rules
It would be good for this notion to be fleshed out more. It maps onto many of the questions being discussed in the standoff between Harvard and the Trump administration.
I was there. Definitely an inferior track as we were blocked from the facilities (dining, gym, library) and opportunities (from financial aid to recruiter interviews) that the men took for granted as co a part of their entitlement. What changed is that the other ivies starred going co -ed at the insistence of their students and Harvards admissions yield was declining in favor of Yale, Dartmouth and Princeton.
"The Virgin Mary, the model of womanhood, is no pale echo of man but a wholly other glory, illuminated by Grace."
What an incredibly beautiful sentence.
Love that you are playing offense here. This restorationist mindset is essential to reclaim our heritage and greatness as a nation.
What a deliciously provocative essay. There is so much one could say in response. I attended all-female Smith College over 40 years ago and very much enjoyed the all-female environment. I felted ‘protected’ which coming from a very dysfunctional family was important to me at the time. I do enjoy men so, but it was lovely to only see them when I wanted to. It made studying that much easier, ie no distraction. That said, Smith has changed dramatically and as educational options for women opened up better minds flocked to the Ives; None of my classmates blew me away intellectually nor were they overflowing in ambition. One of my daughters began at Smith but eventually left for a more rigorous and stimulating Ivy college; she also tired of the lack of intellectual vigor. Also, and this can’t be emphasized enough, too many young women are leaning insanely to the left politically, with little thought other than to be ‘part of the group’ on all-female campuses like Smith and Wellesley. This fact has made campus life particularly odious. There is absolutely no diversity of political thought. There are very few conservative thinkers on these campuses so there is no exposure to other ideas, no way to debate, to spar and to hone one’s intellect. Moreover, the college administrations are equally ‘woke’ so any suggestions to improve the intellectual environment is not entertained - you see, they already have all the answers! My other daughter graduated Harvard and married Harvard, where I believe she had a more rigorous education but nonetheless, she and her buddies also suffer from leftist group-think. I get the feeling students at Harvard gathered together with like-minded people and once groups were ‘set’ there was little mingling of thought thereafter. So, do I think the sexes should be separated? It all depends…separate bathrooms and living accommodations - absolutely! Without a doubt. But today, 40 years or so out of college, I find men to be more interesting to talk to - on the whole. To me they seem less emotional and manipulative, and get into subject matter; I find women want to chatter about more superficial & social things and they want to be constantly affirmed by other women - so, it can be tedious. As Greg Gutfeld says, ‘A sexist would say!’ 😜 And if I had to do college over again, I would have enjoyed a co-ed classroom environment. However, men and women each need separate spaces to gather and Harvard’s push to close down or insert women into all-male clubs on campus was the wrong thing to do. Men need places to be alone without women around and visa versa. So perhaps the way forward, is to offer some separate areas for women and men to informally gather as a start ?
Well said.
Certainly a well written piece, in the anonymous style of the classical, colonial revolutionary days.
During my school days, I had similar sentiments myself as I often felt that competition for, and distraction by, females did interfere sometimes with the formation of brotherly bonds and friendships. Now, as a 58 year old father of 2 young men and 2 young women, I have a great deal more than my own school days as experience to guide my thinking.
Absolutely, I do agree that separate bathrooms are a must. I am surprised to learn from this piece that they do not exist at Harvard. When I was there, ca. 1985, we males shared entryways with the womenfolk, but the genders (and there were really only two at the time) separated onto different floors of the entryway and used gender-specific bathrooms on their respective floors. My entryway in the yard was Holworthy 4. If I had a vote on the matter, I would at least vote for separate entryways for the respective genders, though I would also give serious thought to a return to the separate housing and/or campuses.
With that said, I would also note that some women do have excellent minds that are not only capable, but actually superior to men, in certain subjects. My own youngest daughter, for example, scored in the 99th percentile on the nationally standardized CogAT test (Cognitive Abilities Test) in fourth grade. Since then, she has consistently demonstrated an affinity for mathematics that exceeds the vast majority of other students, both male and female. Mathematics does not come easily to some people, but my daughter is truly a Math whiz with the potential for high achievement in mathematics and related sciences. A chance to fully develop that potential should not be denied someone like her; nor should the basic human dignity of separate bathrooms at college.
I'll have to think about my classical, colonial nom de plume. But, for now, my real name ...
Jonathan "Jono" Gal
AB '89 Biology
The problems posed by footnote 2 were present when Harvard and Radcliffe were truly separate and distinct.
Harvard College and Radcliffe college essentially merged.
At Columbia, the approach was different. Barnard College remained all female, while Columbia college became co-ed.
In general, a university could offer 4 models:
1. All male
2. Co-ed, run with a male mode of learning
3. Co-ed, run with a female male mode of learning
4. All female
Harvard is claimed here to be #3.
Columbia is #4 plus somewhere between #2 and #3.
One could offer all 4 models in the same university. I'd choose #2. I am blessed to have a wife who graduated from Harvard Business School (#2) and a daughter who is a US Army officer who is in a #2 environment.
It is too bad this article only arrived by email this afternoon. I was talking this morning with Dean Deming and it would have been interesting to get Deming's observations on where Harvard could fit in all of this.
What is the difference between #2 and #3?
That is an important question.
I was riffing off the term "female mode of learning" used in this essay. It was not defined in the essay, but I assume it means things like:
⦿ politeness vs. intellectual vitality Charlie Kirk style
⦿ academic teamwork vs. individual achievement in academics
⦿ everyone gets a trophy vs. rewarding excellence
⦿ endless forgiveness vs. enforcing rules
It would be good for this notion to be fleshed out more. It maps onto many of the questions being discussed in the standoff between Harvard and the Trump administration.
Helen Andrews on the Great Feminization is a must-read
https://x.com/herandrews/status/1971178399541690594
Also J. Stone on Larry Summers' defenestration
https://thoughtsofstone.com/the-day-the-logic-died/
Arnold Kling:
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/assimilating-women-into-male-institutions
Charles Haywood on Mary Harrington:
https://theworthyhouse.com/2023/04/11/feminism-against-progress-mary-harrington/
I was there. Definitely an inferior track as we were blocked from the facilities (dining, gym, library) and opportunities (from financial aid to recruiter interviews) that the men took for granted as co a part of their entitlement. What changed is that the other ivies starred going co -ed at the insistence of their students and Harvards admissions yield was declining in favor of Yale, Dartmouth and Princeton.