December 19, 2014 - 11:00
A month or so ago, I discussed the topic of the environment of Bryn Mawr’s campus and its relation to its students. I came to the conclusion that the college, while attempting to support the ideas of creativity and individuality, actually hindered this very individuality in trying to upkeep its image as an aristocratic college. Personally, I believe that this solely sophisticated and traditional idea of high society is obsolete. Times have changed, and the student body no longer reflects the original projections of M. Carey Thomas’ idealized college; we are cracking her constricting mold of cisgender, white, upper class women. With references from Helen Horowitz’s Alma Mater accounting the roots of the college, I’d like to explore how identities—specifically concerning trans students at women’s colleges—can evolve, while remaining true to the idea of woman.
There have already been changes in Bryn Mawr’s history as it is. When M. Carey Thomas became president, she changed the original Quaker education to a secular one. As it stands now, Bryn Mawr no longer identifies as the Quaker college it was intended to be. In this case, the identity was shifted, rather than expanded. The college also lost its identity as a “female Haverford” when M. Carey Thomas wanted to instead model the school on John’s Hopkins. On another note, the Bryn Mawr has tweaked its identity to not accept only rich white upper class women—despite Thomas’ wishes to keep it that way. In this scenario, the identity expanded to include others, and is working to shed classism and racism within the population.
What it really comes down to, I suppose, is trying to pinpoint exactly what kind of college Bryn Mawr is, because the language is scattered and vague. Is it a “college for women”, as it originally was proposed (Horowitz 7)? This sort of phrasing implies that it is a college made for women, and women only. Later on, Horowitz ruminates that the campus actually was designed not for women, but for some genderless student body. Could it be a “women’s college”, to which it is generally referred? Bryn Mawr, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and other colleges often go by this term. At first glance it might seem that it’s synonymous with college for women but it implies possession; not only is this college for women, but it is also by and belonging to women. It implies the importance of women in positions of authority making womanly decisions, creating a “female community where women’s influence dominated” (Horowitz 10). Furthermore, this is not only a singular woman that we’re talking about—that e makes all the difference. Rather, it’s a plural women, meaning that it must involve and represent different types of women. “Women’s college”, therefore, means that women and feminist ideals should govern the college.
It’s important to acknowledge that identities aren’t static. Identities evolve with new periods and with new generations of different-minded people. However, this paper is not disputing that aspect; instead, we look at how an identity can expand while retaining some aspect of its former self. It seems crucial, however, to thoroughly examine what parts of Bryn Mawr’s identity one wants to keep and why. The college in itself is catered to a marginalized gender; within the student body there are many who are actively participating in discussions of gender and how it affects their own identity. What type of student are we trying to accept? What community are we trying to create? It seems that the reason we accept women is to gather a community of people who have been affected by gendered discrimination and offer them a safe place in which to learn, participate, and grow. Our definition of women, then, is expanded to include all genders that have experienced patriarchal discrimination. That is what can define “woman”, and is what can define who we admit to the college.
I do believe that there are no catchall solutions, but there are steps that we could at least try, and see how they work. First off, we need to be mindful of the voices that this will affect; I believe that it’s necessary to listen to trans students at Bryn Mawr, instead of making moves without them. They should be kept in the loop; perhaps a renewed Transgender Task Force is necessary. The TTF should be publicized so that students know who is working on their behalf and can contribute to the discussion as they see fit. It’s crucial that faculty be on this committee (as it mostly is currently), so that any longer-term changes can be seen through years after students graduate.
We should also try changing the admissions policy. It should be visibly mentioned somewhere that it will be elastic in nature, for as the complicated discussion on gender continues, there will inevitably be some change. Language evolves quickly as we discover new ideas and concepts, and we should not be fated to remain stuck in a hole while the discussion evolves beyond us. On strict technical terms, I feel that we should accept those who were either assigned to be female at birth (regardless of how they identify when applying), and/or identify as a woman at the time of their application. To have been female assigned means to have—at one point or another—experienced society’s patriarchal treatment of women. I feel that that is more than enough reason to allow trans applicants a place at our college.
As a note to wrap things up, readers will notice that in the title, I simply took the course title and switched out “story” with “college”. Our college is our story. Its identity may shift, its environment may be altered, but to move forward, its definition must be expanded in order to retain its goals and include others.
Works Cited
Horowitz, Helen. “A Certain Style of ‘Quaker Lady’ Dress” and “Behold They Are Women!” Alma Mater: Design and Experience in the Women’s Colleges From their Nineteenth-Century Beginnings to the 1930s. Knopf, 1984. 105-133.