When Women Came to Princeton
A new book explores the dawn of coeducation at elite universities
In the late 1960s, several prestigious universities in the United States — including Princeton — decided to admit women for the first time. The reasons it happened at this particular moment are surprising and largely unexplored. In her new book, “Keep the Damned Women Out”: The Struggle for Coeducation, professor emerita of history and former Dean of the College Nancy Weiss Malkiel illuminates the forces that prompted a small group of powerful men to implement this pivotal change. She spoke to PAW about her findings.
In the book, you focus on a handful of universities that were male-only in the 1960s, even though other elite institutions had been coed for years. What was different about the universities you write about?
There’s a long tradition of single-sex education among Eastern elite universities and colleges, going all the way back to Harvard’s founding in the 17th century. Places like Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Harvard — they were all founded on the presumption that they would educate men. They had been educating men for one or two centuries when, at the end of the 19th century, we see the founding of private colleges for women, like Vassar, Smith, Wellesley, and Barnard.
No one was thinking at that time about opening up institutions like Princeton to women, because they believed their long tradition of single-sex education really worked. These places provided an excellent education for young men; they developed leaders; they fostered camaraderie among students that led to lifelong friendships and important business associations. And there was a belief that the magic of all that — if you will — depended on the fact that these institutions were male.
Coeducation at these universities took place during the profound social shifts of the 1960s. How did those shifts affect the decision to admit women?
As we all know, the 1960s were an extraordinarily complicated and turbulent period. By the end of the decade, American society in general — and American educational institutions in particular — bore only a limited resemblance to what they had been 10 years before. At the beginning of the 1960s, you couldn’t have a person of the opposite sex in a dormitory except at very specific times of the week and times of day; there were regulations about everything from cars to when you could actually leave campus.
All of this was shaken up during the 1960s. Conservative private, elite universities began to think about socioeconomic diversity, to consider the idea that maybe you would look for students in public schools, Catholic and Jewish students, African American students. Coeducation fits into all of this because if you’re beginning to open up admissions, why not think about gender?
But one has to stop for a moment because the real motivation for places like Yale and Princeton as they embarked on serious consideration of coeducation wasn’t really all these [social] movements. It was the changing face of admissions.
What do you mean?
Around this time, the “best boys” in private and public high schools were beginning to show that they didn’t want to attend places that only had men, these “monastic institutions,” as President Robert Goheen [’40 *48] called Princeton. So they needed to figure out a way to regain their hold on these “best boys.”
Two institutions in particular — Princeton and Yale — realized that they were in trouble at about the same time, and watched each other and reacted to what the other one was doing. At first, they tried to deal with this by having women nearby, in a coordinated institution. In the middle of the 1960s, Yale tried to persuade Vassar College to move from Poughkeepsie to New Haven. Vassar seriously considered this offer, and this led President Goheen to approach Sarah Lawrence College about relocating near Princeton’s campus. When Vassar and Sarah Lawrence both eventually said “no, thank you,” the conversation slowly turned to coeducation.
How did Princeton influence other schools’ decisions to embark on coeducation?
Princeton really stood out in its careful and thoughtful approach. While it was courting Sarah Lawrence, Princeton’s leaders decided that they needed to study the question of coeduation. In the spring of 1967, the Board of Trustees agreed to President Goheen’s proposal that they invite Gardner Patterson, a professor of economics, to undertake a serious analytic study of whether the education of women made sense for Princeton.
When this report was finished in September 1968, it was sent to the president of Yale. He had been considering establishing a coordinate college for women, but he decided that Yale needed to get out ahead of Princeton, and got approval to begin coeducation starting in the fall of 1969. There was no process or planning — they just turned on a dime. Princeton had to respond. So this is how, in April of 1969, Princeton’s Board of Trustees voted to enroll women the following fall.
Were the leaders of Princeton thinking about whether coeducation would be good for women?
They were thinking a little bit about whether Princeton would be good for women — but they were thinking a lot more about whether women would be good for Princeton. Women were imagined to be a vehicle for restoring the “best boys” to places like Princeton and Yale. They were instruments, if you will.
One of the most fascinating parts of the Patterson report is a tiny little section titled “Can Princeton Do Justice to Women Students?” In it, Patterson wrote, “It would be a disgrace to Princeton were the University to admit women only because it believed that this would serve the interests, however broadly defined, of its male students.”
Princeton officials “were thinking a little bit about whether Princeton would be good for women — but they were thinking a lot more about whether women would be good for Princeton.”
Nancy Weiss Malkiel
That’s a wonderful sentiment, but frankly, very little about the process of making the decision for coeducation spoke to this issue. Clearly there was a concept that there were women of talent who could do the work here and thrive here. But to consider what we needed to do for women students — none of these institutions were doing that. And I think that is partly why it was so tough for the first women students — because these places had no experience in educating women and they didn’t know how to do it.
How difficult was it for the early women students?
Well, of course there were the large majority of alumni who thought the magic of Princeton, the special experience of attending school here, would be irreparably damaged by admitting women. They thought women wouldn’t be serious about their studies, that they would come to places like this to look for husbands, that they were taking up places that could be filled by able men.
READ MORE: Trials of the Co-ed 100
A 1973 PAW essay by Jane Leifer ’73
But it wasn’t just the alumni who made things challenging for those first women students. You had male professors who would ask them for the women’s point of view, putting the sole woman in precept on the spot, even in classes in math and statistics. A faculty member at Dartmouth put slides up on a screen, including nude women among sea creatures. A woman student at Yale asked the chair of the history department if he would consider giving a course on the history of women, and he said, “That would be like teaching the history of dogs.” The first cohorts of women were essentially under a microscope; the first Princeton women say that they felt they were in a foreign country.
You write,“Fundamentally changing Princeton would take much more than adding some female faculty and students.” Can you elaborate?
Getting women students respected for the quality of their intellects and the effectiveness of their imagination and analytic ability — that didn’t happen automatically. It took a while for some faculty to come to the view that women were fully capable of excelling as students. And none of the places that were newly coeducated moved quickly to hire and then tenure women faculty.
Those realities caused a lot of bumps along the way. Are we fully past them? No, we’re not. There are departments here that have very few women faculty and students. As we know from the report on undergraduate women’s leadership published in 2011 [See PAW, April 6, 2011], we don’t have a gender-neutral pattern of leadership in undergraduate activities.
So coeducation is very much normal now, but the full integration of women and men into a student body that warmly embraces and supports equally both genders — it’s not a finished project.
You were one of the first female faculty members at Princeton. What was your experience, as both an observer of and a participant in coeducation?
There were three women in the professorial ranks when I arrived in 1969. That meant there were endless opportunities to participate in committees and activities and give talks — they wanted one of us. In some ways, it gave me a broader acquaintance with the place than I might have had otherwise.
My students seemed amused by me. I had a junior advisee who brought me an apple during office hours. Did I encounter situations where not everyone was enthusiastic about my presence as a woman faculty member? Yes. But on the whole I had a very good time. That was not true of my counterparts in every department, of course.
What was the effect of coeducation on women’s colleges?
This story starts with Vassar. They weren’t in a geographical location near men’s colleges, so coeducation came to them as a means of institutional self-preservation. Wellesley and Smith were able to be more reflective. But they had to think seriously about coeducation because of what the men’s schools were doing. Would it be possible for a school like Smith, for example, to retain its hold on excellent students and faculty if all these men’s schools were going coed? In the end, Smith remained single-sex largely because of the women’s movement. Gloria Steinem, who was an alumna of Smith, gave a commencement speech in 1971 where she said, essentially, that feminism means being a strong women’s college.
The result was that because really excellent women students now wanted to go to Princeton and Yale, places like Smith and Wellesley had to adjust to a rather different set of credentials — in terms of SAT scores and grades and class rank — for their incoming students. But they’re still producing women who go on to become leaders, which is what they used to do.
Do you think there’s still a need for single-sex schools?
I served on the Smith Board of Trustees for a decade, so I’ve often talked to prospective students about the advantages of a women’s college and can make that pitch easily. At a women’s college, you’re the principal business of the institution. You have every opportunity to study any subject without any concerns — you’re the ones who will be the presidents and the editors-in-chief.
But then I’d always say, but I actually think that my women students at Princeton have all these opportunities too. What I sometimes acknowledge is that if women high school students were thinking about what would really be good for them as a long-term investment, they might well choose a women’s college. But if they’re thinking about where they’ll have the best time as a student, they’ll choose a coed school.
What surprised you most in researching this book?
I had no idea that President Goheen had tried to persuade Sarah Lawrence to move to Princeton. That stunned me. The male presidents of the major single-sex institutions that were contemplating coeducation did their damnedest to figure out a way to do it without actually going coed.
Interview conducted and condensed by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux ’11
In June 1967, President Goheen asked Professor Gardner Patterson to study the advisability of coeducation at Princeton. His report argued for the admission of women — but as Malkiel writes in this excerpt from her book, the discussion didn’t focus on women’s interests.
“Can Princeton Do Justice to Women Students?”
What is striking is how little of the discussion of the Patterson report focused on the education of women. It was not that women were absent from the conversation — far from it, because the issue at hand was what would happen if women undergraduates were permitted to enroll at Princeton. Still, most of the conversation was about Princeton as an institution and about Princeton men. Put differently, there were three main actors in this drama: Princeton University, Princeton men, and, potentially, Princeton women. To the extent that women figured in the conversation, it was mainly in terms of how their presence would be good, or less good, for Princeton University and Princeton men. As was the case in so many all-male institutions considering coeducation, women and their needs were largely left out of the equation.
Early on, Patterson had written to a woman who opposed coeducation at Princeton, “Our approach has not been ‘Do women need Princeton?’ but rather, ‘Does the Princeton of the future need women?’ Will Princeton be a better place if there are women in the undergraduate body?” The committee’s primary concern, he said, was “whether the presence of women would heighten the value of the educational experience of the students.”
The Patterson report took a similar tack. Patterson made plain that women were fully able “to participate in the intellectual life of the University”; that they enrolled in college with excellent academic records (indeed, stronger records than those of men, on average); that they brought to college “superior cultural achievements and interests”; and that, at Harvard-Radcliffe and Stanford, the schools most comparable to Princeton, their “average academic records” often surpassed those of men. And women typically graduated at slightly higher rates than men.
Going beyond the qualifications of women students, Patterson raised a tantalizing question: “Can Princeton Do Justice to Women Students?” That section of the report — two-thirds of a page in length — began with a promising paragraph:
“It would be a disgrace to Princeton if it were to admit women only because it believed this would serve the interests, however broadly defined, of its male students. Unless the University, its trustees, its faculty and its students are ready to give continuous and serious concern and effort to what it can offer women for their intellectual growth and development; unless we are willing to accept as desirable that women will demand a quality of education in no way inferior to that offered men; unless we are prepared to acknowledge that the restricted roles of women in the past are outmoded, and the intellectual talents of women are ‘an important personal and public resource to be developed and used with care and courage’; unless we can embrace all of these things, Princeton should abandon all thought of admitting women. In our opinion, this point cannot be stressed too much.”
But then the text meandered in puzzling ways. After asserting that Princeton could meet the charge, the report said, among other things, that there would be no need for massive curricular changes. Additional facilities would be needed for the creative arts, but those would benefit men as well as women. Women, who were less likely than men to be on a clear pre-professional track, might “profit from greater freedom in the choice of majors and distribution requirements.” It might be a good idea to permit “a certain amount of upperclass work taken at other institutions” to count toward requirements for a Princeton degree. It might be desirable to introduce some new introductory courses “with somewhat different content and approaches from those we have now,” whose pre-professional emphases were either “greater or lesser” than would be “appropriate for many women students.” It might “be necessary, in certain disciplines, for the faculty to make a special effort to encourage women students to generalize and to speculate.” And — perhaps the most arresting observation of all — “Princeton would have to avoid graduating a group of ‘little men.’” All told, “Can Princeton Do Justice to Women Students?” was the least focused, most poorly reasoned part of the Patterson report.
READ MORE: “The Education of Women at Princeton”
The 1968 report that paved the way for coeducation
Princeton was working out its destiny at a moment when American society was in the early stages of a major debate about the role of women, and thus at a watershed moment for the higher education of women in the United States. Some parties to the discussion could see what was at stake. At the Princeton Club gathering [about the report] in Denver, for example, “the best question,” Dean of the College Edward D. Sullivan later recorded, “was from a wife, a Smith graduate, who in a very thoughtful and articulate fashion wanted to know if Princeton was really prepared to undertake the education of women, if we had learned well enough how to take on a whole new set of emotional and other problems, and were we prepared to accept the really changed image of Princeton when a number of women alumnae joined the ranks.” She wondered, too, whether [development director] Jerry Horton’s view “that women would damage Princeton was widespread and might in itself be damaging to the women who were admitted.” She favored coeducation but wanted to be sure that Princeton understood what was at stake.
In a five-page letter written to Sullivan after the meeting, a Princeton wife who had spoken at the gathering wrote to elaborate on her concerns. (It was likely the same woman Sullivan had written about, though, as she said, she was a Wellesley alumna.) Although it was clear that it would be good for Princeton men to admit women, it was not at all clear whether it would be good for women. “Princeton would have to do as well by its women as by its men. But Princeton’s accomplishments and sensibilities lie with men.” How much thought had Princeton given to the needs of undergraduate women? “Is it feasible,” she asked, “for women to receive a personally meaningful and valuable educational experience in an institution so deeply and traditionally male?” “My concern,” she said, “is that Princeton is as responsible in doing this, as it is bold; that it recognizes the subtlety, extent and depth of its male tradition and has the institutional courage to become as effective a coeducational institution as it was a men’s college.”
TALK BACK: How have women changed Princeton — and what work remains? Share your views in the comments section
How much did issues of this sort — admittedly subtle and complex — figure in the Patterson committee discussions? How much were they on Patterson’s mind as he wrote? It is not easy to tell from Patterson’s text. Patterson acknowledged women’s increasing participation in the labor force, presenting data showing that women would use their education by entering into employment outside the home, especially in professional and technical fields, and arguing that Princeton therefore had the opportunity to help to meet the growing “demand for highly-educated women,” thus “responding to national needs and opportunities.” He gave reason to believe that he understood that the university was facing a sea change in American society in terms of roles and expectations for women — for their education, as well as for their later lives. But that was about as far as he went.
Excerpted from “Keep the Damned Women Out”: The Struggle for Coeducation by Nancy Weiss Malkiel. © 2016 Princeton University Press. Reprinted with permission.
15 Responses
Meral Ekincioglu
6 Years AgoFor early women architecture...
For early women architecture students at the Princeton University, School of Architecture (Class of 1970 and 1971): https://www.youtube.com/wat.... If anyone would like to share his/her critical comments and/or to contribute to this presentation, I would be very glad.
Thank you in advance & best regards,
Christopher Jones ’95
8 Years AgoMy sister and I are among...
My sister and I are among the thousands of people who owe our very existences to the late President Robert Goheen and the other bold administrators who bucked the Old Guard and admitted women to Princeton. I was lucky enough to speak with President Goheen on a few occasions; he was far and away the most intelligent person I have ever met.
I look forward immensely to reading this book. Thank you to PAW, Ms. Thomson-DeVeaux ’11, and Dean Malkiel for the fascinating interview and the excerpt.
Al Mondelli ’67
8 Years AgoEven before 1969, there were...
Even before 1969, there were a small number of female students at Princeton. Starting in 1984, five or six women were enrolled in the Critical Languages Program. This was the beginning of a coed undergraduate at Princeton.
Anne M. Mariella ’72
7 Years AgoOn the Cover
It is the consensus of friends and family that I am the woman in the picture on the cover of the Oct. 5 issue (“In the beginning: How coeducation emerged”). The photo credit specifies only that the picture is from the University’s archives, circa 1970s. I can attest that this picture would have been taken in September 1969, the day I arrived on campus and moved into my assigned dormitory room in Pyne Hall.
I appreciated reading about the work of Nancy Weiss Malkiel, much of which seemed familiar and some of which provided a slightly new point of view. At the time I was only 18 years old, transferring in as a sophomore, and had only a limited appreciation of the bigger picture across the United States. I remember shortly after undergraduate women officially arrived at Princeton in the fall of 1969, a meeting or assembly where the results of the Patterson report were reviewed. It did not seem particularly surprising that the main reason to admit women was to get the men Princeton really wanted, men who in those days were not willing to attend an all-male University.
Thank you for making this publication easily available online.
Nicholas Clifford ’52
7 Years AgoMore on Coeducation
Published online November 30, 2016
Many thanks for printing the interview about women coming to Princeton in the Oct. 5 issue. A few comments:
1) In my years at Princeton (1948-52), I had only one woman in the classroom — a language drill instructor. I wonder if she was the only woman on the faculty? (I hope not; there are many who believe women make better language teachers than men.)
2) I’m not quite sure it’s correct to list Harvard along with Yale and Princeton as similarly laggard in the education of women. Since World War II (I think), Harvard classes were fully coeducational with Radcliffe. On the other hand, one did get the sense back then that Harvard was always careful to insist that Radcliffe was No. 2. In 1957, I attended the graduation of Deborah Pickman, who 10 days later would become my wife. It was held in Sanders Theatre, where it wouldn’t get in the way of the Real Commencement, which was of course a much grander all-day affair held in the Yard, for men only. Still, when I arrived at Harvard as a grad student in ’56, the women were all over. A pleasantly new surprise; since I had no sisters and had been educated in all-boys schools, followed by a few years in the all-male Navy, this was my first experience with coeducation, and one of the results was my wedding 10 months after arriving in Cambridge.
2) Though the interview didn’t mention it, let’s remember that there were a few women students before they were officially admitted in ’69. These were the critical-language students who had come to Princeton to do advanced work in languages less available elsewhere. Perhaps they were the real pioneers, and I’m sure Malkiel’s book gives them full credit. My family lived in Princeton from ’62-’66, where I was teaching in the history department. We knew one of the Critters, as the critical-language students were known, and she showed up to baby-sit one evening so Deborah and I could go out. My daughter, then 6 or 7 years old, met her at the door, and asked her what she did. “I’m a student,” was the response, to which my daughter replied, “I thought only boys could be students!” Deborah, with her Radcliffe background, was understandably horrified (a New Englander, she’d always looked on our years in New Jersey as a kind of exile). The Critter in question (a Vassar graduate) went on to become a high-powered political scientist of China.
3) Though I’ve no idea how true this is, a few years after we’d left Princeton (to return to New England), one of my Princeton history colleagues told me of going to a faculty meeting in Nassau Hall where one of the admission officers spoke, proving statistically that even under the most extreme circumstances, women could never make up more than 27.5 percent of the student body. A reminder of that book, How to Lie with Statistics, I suppose.
4) Some 15 or so years ago, one of my colleagues here at Middlebury, who was a Smith graduate, invited Deborah and me to join her for a talk by Jill Ker Conway, then president of Smith. Conway gave an impassioned defense of single-sex education, and she was such a powerful speaker that I came out of the session convinced that all the rest of us had made a dire mistake in embracing coeducation. (I’ve since heard some convincing arguments for single-sex education in boys’ schools, but that’s another issue, of course.)
Charles S. Rockey Jr. ’57
7 Years AgoMore on Coeducation
The article on Nancy Weiss Malkiel’s new book regarding the admission of women at Princeton was interesting and informative. It does not address, however, the broken promise made by several Princeton administrators privately to some alumni (including me) that the number of men in each class would not be reduced as the result of coeducation. Forty-seven years later, the number of men undergraduates is still lower than prior to coeducation.
Thomas H. Wright ’62
7 Years AgoCoeducation and Class Size
A letter in the Dec. 7 issue raised a question about the decision in the early 1970s to admit undergraduates without requiring the number of males to remain the same as prior to coeducation.
William Bowen *58 became president July 1, 1972, and hired me as the first in-house legal counsel. At an early trustee meeting I attended, there was a report about the increasing numbers of female applicants, following relatively smaller numbers in the very first years of coeducation. I pointed out that, under the then-recently enacted Title IX Education Amendments of 1972, a fixed number of admittees that adversely affected some applicants on the basis of their sex would be illegal. I also advised that such a quota would probably be illegal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The choice before the trustees was either a) to essentially double the size of each entering class to reflect the fact that women were approaching the number of male applicants, or b) if holding the size of each class to the level decided upon at the time of the coeducation decision was a priority, to allow the number of admitted men and women to reflect their respective strengths as applicants, without any fixed number. As I recall, there was no dissent among the trustees that holding to the increase in size was the substantially higher priority, and indeed some trustees expressed the view that maintaining a quota for men that would clearly disadvantage female applicants was wrong educationally and would be offensive morally.
These events are well covered in detail in “Keep The Damned Women Out”: The Struggle for Coeducation by Nancy Weiss Malkiel, professor of history emeritus and longtime dean of the college.
A. Franklin Burgess Jr. ’65
7 Years AgoMore on Coeducation
The article on the origin and implementation of coeducation at Princeton (cover story, Oct. 5) omits The Daily Princetonian’s early role in that historic change. In her new book, former dean Nancy Weiss Malkiel recounts much of the story.
In its Jan. 8, 1965, issue, The Princetonian devoted roughly 5,000 words to an article titled “A Diagnosis of Princeton’s Social Illness.” That illness, wrote James M. Markham ’65 (later a distinguished foreign correspondent for The New York Times), was caused by the absence of females in undergraduate life. The Princetonian editorialized that “today there is good reason to believe that the development of a young man’s mind is not only not impeded, but is enhanced by normal contact with women.” The editorial also argued that with coeducation, “the University would be meeting a major responsibility toward a part of society which it has heretofore ignored.” The New Yorker and Time, among others, reported on the article.
Before The Princetonian published its story, President Goheen ’40 *48 said “Princeton does not have any social problems that coeducation would cure.” He also said, apparently tongue-in-cheek, that the University would accept $40 million to build facilities for women. At its annual banquet in early 1965, The Princetonian handed President Goheen a $500 check as an initial investment in coeducation. He accepted the check graciously but noncommittally.
We did not know then, but now have learned from Dean Malkiel, that Markham’s article contributed to the evolution in President Goheen’s thinking about the need for coeducation.
Donald W. Maloney ’49
7 Years AgoMore on Coeducation
I read with great interest the article on the arrival of women on the campus (as students) in 1969.
Women in numbers actually arrived on campus in 1946 — as wives of returning veterans of World War II. The old “barracks” erected on the polo field filled up and the young women and their husbands were the overflow, residing in Brown Hall, which, with a single entrance to a courtyard (on which the dormitory stairs exited), gave more protection.
My evening sandwich route included Brown Hall and I had numerous customers, including the friendly and informal young wives. Subsequently, other accommodations allowed all to reside elsewhere.
My daughters Megan ’77 and Deneen ’82 followed in their long-forgotten footsteps.
Carol Silverman ’73
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
I write as one of that first class of women at Princeton (“In the Beginning,” cover story, Oct. 5). I had often thought that this book about coeducation should be written, and if I had stayed in academics might have attempted it myself. I think an analysis of precisely how we were “welcomed” and integrated is important: that first large meeting in Alexander Hall, where we were all given makeup kits from (I believe, memory is fuzzy) a local store and large flowers from an alumnus who had resisted coeducation. It certainly told us what about us mattered.
Or putting us in one dormitory with locks on the doors so that we would be protected from raging male hormones. (I always wondered about the discussion that led to that decision.)
Or, as mentioned in the article, the number of faculty who saw us as nothing more than our gender. I remember I said something in a German class that had nothing to do with gender, and was told by another student that the faculty member said to him that maybe it was good that Princeton had admitted women because he hadn’t considered the point I had stated and a girl’s perspective (rather than simply the fact that I might have made an intelligent comment) might add to the discussion.
I, and I am sure the other 100 women admitted as new students and the 48 transfer students, have many other stories.
David Swartling ’69
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
I read with interest “When Women Came to Princeton,” but was disappointed that the article neglected to mention the contribution of undergraduates in mobilizing support for and advocating on behalf of coeducation. As a founding member of Students for Women at Princeton and an advisory member to the Patterson Committee, I can attest that students played an important role in raising the issue of coeducation among those on campus and in advocating for the adoption of the Patterson Committee report in the expanded Princeton community.
I recall devoting several days one summer to interviewing an admission officer at Stanford and writing an article for The Daily Princetonian. I also remember attending a forum with Professor Patterson and explaining to alumni that coeducation was principally about education, keeping Princeton competitive, and contributing to the development of well-rounded individuals.
Many others made similar contributions. Indeed, the fact that two-thirds of all undergraduates responded to the Patterson Committee’s survey on coeducation and 83 percent of those expressed support is a tribute to the success of those efforts.
If the Patterson Committee provided the recipe for coeducation, students provided the yeast!
Stephen C. Carlson ’73
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
As a Princeton graduate, Class of 1973, who has been married to a coed, Class of 1975, for more than 40 years, I have often longed for the “old Princeton,” but like King Lear I have three daughters. I have often thought that I would be very upset if Princeton had not admitted women so that my daughters, who went to Princeton (Class of 2004) and the University of Chicago; to Carleton and Columbia; and to Johns Hopkins, would have been denied admission based on “their plumbing.” Perhaps as more Princeton men have daughters, there will be more emphasis on the benefits to women of going to a place like Princeton.
Laurence C. Day ’55
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
You quote Nancy Malkiel making a seemingly indefensible statement about admissions: “All of this was shaken up during the 1960s. Conservative private, elite universities began to think about socioeconomic diversity, to consider the idea that maybe you would look for students in public schools, Catholic and Jewish students, African American students.” “Began to think”?
I was admitted in 1951 into the Class of 1955. We had boatloads of freshmen from public high schools. Well more than a mere handful of classmates were Jewish and Catholic, though we didn’t ask their religion or ethnic background. Granted, there were only three black students in our class. There was a notable percentage from private boarding and day schools that were feeders to Princeton. A few were even Catholic prep schools. Why, we even had Democrats!
I was the first in my family to attend college. I was on a partial scholarship grant with a job in the dining halls and a University loan, as were many classmates. That was not unusual in the early ’50s. Socioeconomic diversity appears to begin well before the 1960s — more likely even before I was admitted in 1951 after the World War II years — and I don’t see any 1960s timeline connection to gender admissions. That was a real leap from an all-male school for 224 years in 1970. Aside from all the in-depth, who-benefits-most internal discussions of admitting women to Princeton, the answer was simple. The educational climate was changing. Yale did it. Princeton had to compete.
Robert I. Rhodes *72
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
There is a bit of a backstory to Princeton’s decision to welcome women. The story was told to me by Marvin Bressler, my old Graduate School professor, quite a few years after I left Princeton.
Professor Bressler was the chair of the Commission on the Future of the College, and this is the little story he told me with a satisfied chuckle. It seems that there was no major expansion of the faculty when women became students at Princeton. And the number of male students was not decreased.
Professor Bressler was pleased because, as he noted, if it had not been for women, there would have been resistance to this increase in the student/teacher ratio. Is this little factoid in Professor Malkiel’s book?
Theodore Ziolkowski
8 Years AgoAdmitting Women
In the interest of accuracy, your interview with Nancy Malkiel should be supplemented with the information that women began being admitted to the Graduate School under Dean Donald Hamilton in 1961.
One of my own first Ph.D. students in German was Maria Tatar *71, and one of our closest friends was Nina Berberova, the distinguished Russian writer, who came from Yale to Princeton in 1963 and taught in Slavics until her retirement in 1971.
As has often been the case in Princeton’s history (e.g., admission of minorities and foreign students), the Graduate School anticipated developments in the College.