Where are the voices of diversity touting the benefits of the male perspective when you need them?

K.T., at 7:30 am EDT on August 11, 2006

RMWC

I am a RMWC alum. Many of us are NOT happy about Macon admitting men. We don’t understand the comment “to attract more women, we need to attract men.” While there are some girls who go to college only because of boys or to get their M.R.S., many of us alums went to college to improve ourselves and thus improve our communities and country. There are more than 2,000 co-ed institutions in this country, but only a handful whose main purpose is to educate and empower women. I suggest that if the board wants to “attract more women” they concentrate on increasing the excellent faculty, campus, overseas programs, and courses available to the students. Don’t use men as “bait” to get the girls!!!

K., at 10:45 am EDT on August 11, 2006

We need to know the truth....

I have never been so embarrassed to hear from our “new President” that in order for more women to attend RMWC we need men to get them there. I have a hard time believing President Worden is really upset over the whole issue, since she never attended RMWC and has only been in place for such a short time. The statement that has been made just goes to show you how narrow minded the BOT’s thoughts have become. Instead of thinking of ways to remain a woman’s college their solution is to throw men at it and hope that it resolves the problem. If I had wanted to attend a small co-ed liberal arts college I honestly doubt I would have even given RMWC a thought since there are so many to choose from. However, since I was looking to attend a woman’s college and RMWC offered the Reading Program, RMWC was a perfect match for me. I was accepted at Meredith College, Stephens College, Hollins College and Sweet Briar College, but RMWC was my first and only choice once I visited the campus. If the BOT is so sure about this step they are getting ready to take they should make all records available to be reviewed by an un-biased third party, yet they refuse to provide the information needed for the alums to see that this is the only resolution. Several alums have offered to review financial reports and to do what ever they can to help save the college, but the BOT has been silent and unwilling to accept their help. The BOT states we are just to take their word for it. I’m sorry, but I will not. If, after a third party review, their conclusion has been made that the college need to go co-ed to survive then we will have to go their decision. But until then, I will never believe the reports the BOT has said that they received. Honestly, when you can’t even get a copy of the Strategic Planning Committee’s report what does that tell you?

I also have a hard time agreeing with Professor Sheldon when he said that the committee has been open and transparent. The first time the alums heard from the committee was to state that they had decided to abruptly dissolve the Reading Program. Even the director, Dr. Paul Irwin, was unaware of this decision until the very day it was announced. Then suddenly two months later, we hear that the BOT is strongly considering to go co-ed. Where were the letters asking for additional financial support over the past several years? Where were the e-mails asking the alums to help recruit to increase enrollment? Where were the pleas to help keep RMWC a woman’s college? Instead we received the usual Annual Fund request card and the glossy annual report making it look like the college is doing just fine. No one knew about the state of the college until we first heard about the Reading Program’s demise. The Reading Program is one of the best programs that RMWC has to offer for students wishing to study abroad. Again, alums were left out of the decision making process and were only told about the dissolution when the decision had already been made. Don’t you think if the BOT really wanted to save the program that they would have let the very director of the program, Dr. Irwin know when they first started seeing problems? Something smells very rotten here and I wish someone would investigate to find out what is really goin on. This deception by the BOT is not what RMWC is about, and the RMWC community should not stand for it. I honestly feel that the BOTs goal was never to save the Reading Program or keep the college from going co-ed. Their goal was to try to rush these changes in while President Bowman had one foot out the door and while President Worden is stepping in. The BOT needs to go back and re-read the RMWC honor code. The alums have been lied to, and for the most part abandoned. Our comments and suggestions to help save the college seem to have fallen on deaf ears, and the way the BOT is behaving is appalling. I think if a vote was taken you would find that many of the alums would ask that the BOT be dissolved and a new BOT be voted in that is willing to consider the alumnae and student’s suggestions. But the BOT can’t be touched and I believe the only way we are going to be able to save the college from admitting men is to raise our collective voices and be as loud as possible. As much as I hate to say this, the alums and current students at RMWC need to become the “squeaky wheel” and squeak as loud as they possibly can or face the reality that next year they will be sharing their classrooms and dorms with men; since the President seems to think this is the only way to solve the enrollment problem.

A., at 11:10 am EDT on August 11, 2006

We most definitely feel as thought they have turned their backs on us. When I applied and was accepted I was under the impressiont hat I would graduate in 4 years as a Randolph-Macon Woman. If they vote yes to admitting men then men will be on campus beginning fall of 2007...my senior year. If the board of trustees really wanted to save the school then they would as many other women’s colleges have faced this same decision and walked away.

D. H., RMWC, at 1:10 pm EDT on August 11, 2006

I’m confused by the alumnae withholding their support as a means to express protest. Wouldn’t MORE alumnae support go a long way to alleviate the financial woes of the institution?

Confused, at 1:10 pm EDT on August 11, 2006

R-MWC going co-ed

I have to agree with “confused” as far as alumnae witholding financial pledges because of this. The college needs our support now more than ever and withholding money may well put the shcool out of business entirely. As much as I don’t want the college to go co-ed, I would rather to see it continue as a viable institution and not go under. Lynchburg and Rivermont Avenue would never be the same if the college closes. D., alumna

D. Clark, at 6:20 pm EDT on August 11, 2006

Two comments

(1) I was a product of a single-sex undergraduate education at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, before the school went co-educational. The experience was formative in so many ways for me socially — but the one negative of the experience was the single-sex environment, especially at a science and engineering-centric school, which is really a unique market. I really noticed a fundamental ineptitude in dealing with the opposite sex educationally and professionally when I was in graduate school (fortunately, the very strong female graduate advisor was a counterweight to this). Rose-Hulman is co-ed now, and that’s nothing but a good thing.

(Of course, male-only education is a substantially different from female-only education, and there might be a compelling argument out there that a female-only science and engineering school OUGHT to exist. I won’t try to make that argument, though.)

(2) As a wise man once said, “I really wonder whether this family can afford to be principled right now.” Whatever the merits of female-only education might be, the simple fact is that times are hard and money is tight and there are PLENTY of schools out there legitimately worried about survival. I have no reason to doubt President Worden’s conclusions about how Randolph-Macon can attract the students they need to survive; they fall right in line with everything I have seen and heard over the past decade.

If you truly believe in this form of education — in any specialized form of education, for that matter — the one way you will convince leaders of an institution is by supplying capital — real live dollars and cents, or the interested students that will provide the real live dollars and cents themselves. Either fund the students’ education, or demonstrate that enough students are passionate about a female-only campus that they will fund themselves. In this environment, NO big alumni group who longs for others to have the same education they had will be heard unless they can back up their talk with capital.

And the golden rule remains true.Those with the gold, make the rules.

Dr Chuck Pearson, Assistant Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Shorter College, at 2:45 pm EDT on August 12, 2006

M-MWC going co-ed

In the past few days, I have had the opportunity to voice my opposition to Randolph-Macon Woman’s College being co-educational. I can only hope that someone hears our voices. I can attribute all that I am today to my education there. They taught me how to think and analyze issues, and they gave me a sense of self that is unparalled. Unlike many of the comments to this article, I do feel that the way for the alumnae to protest is not to contribute to the Annual Fund. The Board of Trustees is not going to hear our voices until there is something tangible that they can actually quantify. It does not have to be a continuing withdrawal of giving, but the Board of Trustees has to know that we object vehemently to a decision to become coeducational.

Leslie Ann Shaner, Esquire at R-MWC, at 3:20 pm EDT on August 13, 2006

Anger over Coed plan

During the last big wave tranforming women’s colleges to coeducational institutions my alma mater had the same discussion/fight. I am proud to say we orvercame the mistaken direction and rededicated ourselves to providing a first class education for undergraduated women. Simmons College (Boston) alumnae did indeed put their/our money where our hearts are and by providing a sufficient cushion (plus) to our endowment fund proved that yes money talks, and we could be heard loudly and clearly. If you wish to save a unique and enormously powerful form of education for the next century, unite and pledge what each of you can toward the saving of your institution.

Been there, saved that,tdl/Simmons College Alumna

tdl, at 2:25 pm EDT on August 14, 2006

I love Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, and I believe you all are faced with a challenging situation. To be sure, R-MWC was founded at a time when women were not even admitted to study at most colleges and universities. UVA did not go co-ed until 1970! In an ideal world, women’s colleges would always exist, but it is a no-brainer that your applicant pool is continually shrinking dramatically (especially now that Davidson and W&L admit women).

One of my dearest friends is a Vassar alum, and I urge you to consider the case of Vassar and be open minded.

Some of Vassar’s own material states “After Vassar admitted men, male students learned to build strong relationships with their female peers, and Vassar males began to pride themselves in being “brothers in a special sisterhood.

“The new Vassar proved markedly different, even from other coeducational colleges. Accordingly, the Vassar male became a “type” unto himself – socially aware, sensitive, and humble. Just as opening a women’s college had been considered revolutionary in 1865, making the same college coeducational, and also retaining its decidedly non-sexist atmosphere, would prove equally revolutionary in 1969.

“Coeducation at Vassar is best shown not through statistics or stereotypes, but through students’ fearless assertions of their individuality, despite the perceived limitations of the male and female genders.”

Layton Snaders, brother of RMWC alumna, at 8:15 pm EDT on August 20, 2006

KEEP RMWC AN ALL WOMAN’S COLLEGE

AS I WALKED THE GROUNDS BEHIND THE RED BRICK WALLS OF RMWC LAST WEEK, I COULDN’T AVOID GETTING TEARY EYED IN THINKING THAT THIS UNIQUE AND POWERFUL EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT MAY COME TO AN END. YES, I BELIEVE IF THIS COLLEGE GOES CO-ED IT WILL NOT PROVIDE THE ESSENCE THAT INSTILLS THE CONFIDENCE AND SISTERHOOD SPIRIT THAT A WOMAN’S COLLEGE OFFERS. RMWC WAS NOT SET-UP BY ACCIDENT 115 YEARS AGO. LIKE LONG AGO, WOMEN STILL NEED AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO EMPOWER THEMSELVES TO BE COMPETITIVE MEMBERS IN OUR SOCIETY. I HOPE THE BOT KEEP TO THE HONOR CODE AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT, (THEY MISGUIDED NEW STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS ABOUT RMWC BECOMING A CO-ED COLLEGE.) THE BOT SHOULD VOTE TO KEEP RMWC AN ALL WOMAN’S COLLEGE FOR AT LEAST UNTIL 2010.THIS TIME LINE WILL ALLOW THE BOT MORE TIME TO RE-EVALUATE AND TO COLLABORATE INFORMATION WITH ALUMAE, STUDENTS,PARENTS AND FACULTY. NEW SOLUTIONS MAY BE FOUND TO PROTECT THIS WONDERFULLY DIVERSED HISTORICAL COLLEGE. RMWC WALLS SHOULD NOT BE BREACHED BY A POOR DECISION.

HARRITTA GAUSSOIN, PARENT FROM CALIFORNIA at RMWC, at 2:35 pm EDT on August 26, 2006

Anger Over Coeducation Plan

As a 1971 Graduate of RMWC, I am thoroughly dismayed at the prospect of my alma mater going coed. I would like to know WHERE the petitions to voice objections are online!?! I’m trying to find them, as I would like to add my name. I would also like to note that Virginia Hill Worden, did, in fact, graduate from RMWC. I feel that when she states her sadness regarding the possibility of Randolph-Macon going co-ed, it is heartfelt. It would be an amazing loss. I am confused by many things that I have heard....the fact that many alumnae would withdraw their support is a reality that the Board of Trustees should pay attention to, and not cut their nose off to spite their face.S.B. Lynchburg, VA

Susan Baldwin, at 1:25 pm EDT on August 30, 2006

Smoke and mirrors?

One of my fellow R-MWC alums made a very interesting point about all of this and while it may sound very “conspiracy theory", I think it’s worth some thought.

R-MWC has some very valuable assets, primarily the artwork at the Maier Museum of Art, the property at the Riding Center in Lynchburg and the property at Reading, in England. The board made an initial move to sell Reading and was met by a wave of protest from alumnae and students. As a result, they backed off of that idea but shortly after proposed going co-ed.

The board of Trustees knows that going co-ed is a knife in the heart to all R-MWC students and graduates. My good friends theory, which I think is very valid, is that they are diverting the alumnae from the real goal, which will be to liquidate assets in order to remain a single sex college. As we all give a huge sigh of relief, George Bellows’ “Men of the Docks” will hit the auction blocks.

Going co-ed, when the heart of this institution has always been to produce strong women, is so off target that I think this theory is worth some thought.

Margaret, Class of 1987, at 9:50 am EDT on September 3, 2006

I chose a coed college, and not only because of boys or getting my M.R.S. In high school debate was my favorite part of class discussion. Most of the women’s colleges claimed that women need consensus instead of confrontation in order to learn. When these colleges say they want more girls to apply, do they include girls like me too?

Is society really the only thing teaching those young women and men who were born heterosexual that the opposite sex is of great importance to maintaining happiness?

What about students who “aren’t allowed” to go to coed schools because their parents don’t approve of women mixing with men and the can’t afford college without their parents? Now that some schools let you earn your degree online at home, is purdah a good reason for a college to keep out men?

Cathy, at 7:45 pm EDT on September 10, 2006