<p>There is another issue that was brought up by other posters earlier in this thread that has sparked some questions of my own. I meant to ask the Smith officials last week, but didn’t get a chance.</p>
<p>First of all (and this is a general question to all women’s colleges), how do they get away with discriminating against men? How is that they can exclude men from admission as freshmen? Smith receives federal money, correct? (And I don’t mean to be inflammatory, I’m just honestly curious). If Smith had a policy of excluding African-Americans or Asians, it would be struck down–right?</p>
<p>Also, transgendered students who identify as men—if it is an all-women’s college, how are these men allowed to stay. (I think S&P broached this subject). Again, I am not be judgmental at all, just curious.</p>
<p>The intro SWAG guy is one of those professors students either love or hate. I know some people who swear by him. I don’t think I’d enjoy his style of teaching very much. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.</p>
<p>I second R6L on the expert professors. Bill Oram in the English department is renowned on campus for his knowledge of Shakespeare. My computer science instructor is one of the foremost computer scientists in the arts, a rapidly growing field. Likewise, my history professor, Jennifer Guglielmo (I can never spell her name–my apologies if I erred here!), is an expert on feminist immigrant activism and is called to speak at many conferences and panels in various parts of the country. </p>
<p>Not every professor, nor every class, will be a winner. But honestly, while I can find several things that I do dislike about this college, my professors have been universally excellent.</p>
<p>Under Title IX, federal funds can be allocated to women’s colleges that are not professional or technical institutions. We can argue whether that should be the case, but that is the law, and it was not covered in the 1996 VMI decision. Bryn Mawr and Smith, however, cannot discriminate against men in their graduate social work programs. </p>
<p>Oddly enough, the Justice Department IS examining whether coed colleges discriminate against women in admission should be threatened with loss of federal funding. </p>
<p>The transgender issue is evolving. Clearly Smith does not accept (knowingly) any individuals whose private parts aren’t of the feminine persuasion. The question then becomes a sticky one: do you “expel” students who say they are “male” but have female private parts, expel them if their private parts change (that would be a very small number among college students), or just let history take its course? (To me, it would be more interesting to consider whether someone with male instrumentation but who feels like a woman should be allowed to transfer in?) I think that, on the whole, so far Smith has handled the evolving situation pretty well, with bumps in the road.</p>
<p>About the transgendered students question - </p>
<p>Smith says that it admits women and graduates people. Truth is, you’re very unlikely to find someone of a traditional college age who has gone through physical transitions (especially a full surgery) because they are very highly discouraged from making such major biological changes so young, and most psychologists in the field have a minimum age of 25 before anything more lasting than hormones can be undergone. Therefore, the actual issue of biology isn’t really one that Smith has to deal with regarding its trans* students.</p>
<p>The other logistical thing involved is that most people who come out as trans don’t do so during high school or their first year in college - for many Smithies, it is a change that happens gradually and they only start really identifying as trans well into sophomore or junior year (arguably because Smith has granted them the safety and open forums that are very helpful to something as personal and challenging as questioning one’s gender identity), so for many of them transferring, even if they wanted to, isn’t really a viable academic or financial option.</p>
<p>But the real point, I think, ultimately, is that Smith is a safe space for many people who are oftentimes ignored or harassed in the rest of the world, and this can include trans* students, queer students, women, women of color, women in science, women in leadership positions, etc. In order for Smith to continue being a safe, inclusive space for women (and that includes people who have identified as women for the vast majority of their lives and therefore have plenty of shared experiences of sexism, gender oppression and lack of respect and opportunities), those who come out as trans* or genderqueer must not be ignored. They are a part of the community, and they deserve to be treated as such, with all the full rights of other Smith students.</p>
<p>@upstatemom – That’s a good question about transgender students, but as others have said, it’s an evolving issue. It’s become more common but it’s still pretty uncommon for people to be openly transgender in their teens or earlier. So most of the transgender students at Smith did not make the transition until after they arrived on campus. And once they’re at Smith and they’ve made friends and integrated into the campus community, as I said it seems pretty unjust to throw them out simply because they decide to live openly as the person they are. If Smith is an open community where everyone is welcome and a place that embraces social justice, how can we at the same time unceremoniously expel people for being themselves? It would have the effect of encouraging transgender students to suppress who they are and live a lie, lest they be kicked out. I don’t think the best response to an already marginalized group is to tell them “We respect your right to exist, just as long as we don’t have to see you.” </p>
<p>Also, as mini points out, it can be hard to draw a firm line here. Making a full transition, including surgery, can be a very expensive and difficult process. It usually starts with taking hormones. Most of the transgender students I knew that could afford it would the usually progress to “top surgery”, i.e. having plastic surgery to remove their breasts. But not everyone goes as far as surgery right away, some bind their chests instead. Surgery on the lower half usually happens last and is actually not very common among college students because it’s a major surgery and costs a lot. So does Smith expel any student caught with testosterone? Any student that had a flat chest? or just students that get male genitalia? Do they find students who “look like boys” and question them to determine if they identify as male or not? Is identity without physical representation enough? </p>
<p>So basically, there’s a ton of gray area, and it’s an area that’s really just starting to be more common and open. I mean, 50 years ago, this was not an issue Smith had to deal with, so it’s not like there’s a manual in the President’s office that explains what to do. For now, the college is just trying to muddle through. As new challenges crop up (transgender students as tour guides and hosts for example. Transgender students in house bathrooms), we try to deal with them as best we can. Missteps are made, and it can be contentious, but that’s part of Smith. We embrace gray area (and gray matter).</p>
<p>On classes I agree with phanatic – not every single class at any college is going to be a winner. And in intro classes, where they’re trying to give everyone the same basic platform to build on, they may seem a little dull, but they really are necessary. I remember thinking my Government 100 class was booooring (they’ve since changed the format so I think it’s gotten better for students who came after me), but I really didn’t get how valuable it was until I got into more advanced classes. Since we had all taken Gov 100, we all had the same basic political science vocabulary. My professor could drop “John Stewart Mills” and not have to explain who he was and what his basic philosophy was. He could put in an exam question “examine the revolution is Imaginaria from a third level materialist perspective” and even though he didn’t take time to teach us what third level materialism was, because he was teaching us about the politics of Imaginaria, we all knew what it was, cause it was pounded into us in Gov 100. You need those basic tools if you’re going to be able to really understand and analyze advanced material. </p>
<p>Not all learning is going to be super exciting. I can’t say I was that stimulated by being dragged through the key points of Plato’s Republic. But it’s sort of the political science equivalent of learning your times tables. Not super fun at the time, but really useful later on.</p>
<p>Thank you for all the eloquent responses. I think that given the track record and testimonials of Smith students and parents, my daughter cannot go wrong in making her decision (if only she would already! lol)</p>
<p>One thing I would say about Smith that I haven’t found reading other college threads (although I have not read MHC or other women’s colleges’ threads) is that the sense of support and community from students and parents alike is amazing!</p>
<p>USM, if it’s any consolation, I started out being a bit skeptical about Smith at the beginning of the search process. Eyes opened wide at a party for prospects locally, sealed in conversion at the first visit, growing fanaticism with passing experiences of D, ultimately proud to become part of the Smith Mafia, as a parent elsewhere on CC once referred to us Smith parents. (You should see my photo with Tommy gun and wearing a fedora…) Or the Praetorian Guard…except I’d still stick a short sword in Carol Christ (president) over a deeply personal issue were the opportunity to arise but that doesn’t negate my loyalty to the Empire, urr, College.</p>
<p>There are reasons that we’re as supportive as we are.</p>
<p>Upstatemom, I think the support you see on CC is indicative of the kind of support that’s truly available at Smith; my daughter’s experienced it. I am thrilled my daughter is there and I want others’ daughters to have the same kinds of opportunities. That’s why I’m active on CC.</p>
<p>One note about that Women and Gender class, which I assume is the one in the psychology department. My daughter took it her first spring, and it convinced her not to major in psychology and to go into a harder science instead. She found the course too “common sense” and “soft” for her tastes since it was more of an exploration of the issues than a dissection of the how’s and why’s. She found the professor good, but the subject matter not rigorous enough. I’m sure that for students who are deeply interested in SWAG, it can be an exciting introduction. For my daughter, it convinced her that she never wanted to take another social psychology course.</p>
<p>Upstatemom: you can’t change the luck of the draw when it comes to classes that your daughter attended. My daughter decided against Bryn Mawr because she felt that in the classes she visited, the professors were not as engaged, the students more bored, and the material not as challenging as the courses she selected at Smith. Bryn Mawr is also great school, so it had to be just those particular courses. (Her father and I were secretly hoping she’d pick Bryn Mawr because it’s closer to home.) Her decision will be a complex one, but will ultimately come down to a gut decision. If she is deciding between two or three highly regarded colleges, then she should trust her instincts about where she feels she’ll fit in best.</p>
<p>I’m so glad you will discuss the issue of transgenered students. I understand the transition process is complicated and takes time. When the president of the college spoke to us at the Open Campus a week ago, she said Smith is unique because women are in each and every leadership position at Smith. But then this issue of self-identifying males (whether full physical change has occurred? I’m not concerned with that technicality)–are sometimes class president came up on this board. It’s not completely true, then, this assertion that women are in all leadership positions at Smith, and the administration should come to terms with that claim, and that the reality of being humanistic nowadays means taking a hard look at other policies, too–like males who identify with being women, who have also not had the chance to change, yet. How are these individuals treated? I understand the subtle difference of not wanting to assign yourself a gender at all, but for those who are embracing a designation–shouldn’t people who consider themselves “women” (who are perhaps in very early stages of transitioning) be admitted, too? What’s the policy on that?</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think it’s a case of Smith trying to obfuscate.The fact that there are occasionally transgender students in student leadership does not obscure the essential fact that Smith is a school where 99.9% of the leadership positions are filled by women, and a place that is specifically designed to foster and promote leadership in women anymore than having a male professor as head of an academic department does. </p>
<p>I mean, let’s put this in perspective, out of a school of 2700, there are maybe a handful of transgender students at any given time. I hardly think they’re a threat to the essential nature of the college. In fact, I think most of the transgender students I’ve known have been much more gung-ho about Smith than many of the female Smithies. </p>
<p>The policy at Smith (well, I don’t know if it’s enshrined “policy” per se, but it’s the line) is that they accept anyone who is legally female, and they graduate anyone who meets the requirements. So if a person was born male, but has legally made the transition to being female, then they would be eligible to apply. Frankly, I think that just hasn’t happened yet, for the reasons a lot of people have mentioned. It would be extremely rare for a person under 18 to have undergone the legal and physical transformation from male to female. </p>
<p>NPR actually did a very enlightening two part series on transgender children that you might want to check out if you’re interested in the issue. The first part featured two families with young children who were trying to identify as a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth, and each families reaction to that. The second part is about families of transgendered children who are reaching puberty and the choices that they are making.</p>
<p>It is intellectually invigorating that there is an educational institution in this country where these issues are actively discussed, and the implications aren’t simply “academic”.</p>
<p>I’m interested in the issue, but I’m also trying to view it through the lens of an institution that doesn’t say it’s “almost all women.” You have to admit, it’s going to start to change the game, and soon.</p>
<p>Since they have had men in the graduate social work program for more than 20 years, as required under Title IX, they crossed that bridge a long time ago. (I think the transgender issue will change things very slowly, as it should.)</p>
<p>I don’t really see that it changes the game that much, frankly. Yes, it’s something that’s new and interesting, and as a center for the study of gender, I think it’s particularly interesting to deal with at Smith. But again, I wouldn’t let it overshadow the essential nature of the institution. After all, at black colleges like Tuskegee University or Morehouse, they have some white students. Yet that doesn’t seem to change the game for those institutions. We have some students that prefer to be addressed with male pronouns. I don’t think that changes the nature of Smith as a place for women. But that’s just my two cents.</p>
<p>Even if identifying as male, transgender students has not undergone gender reassignment surgery remain legally and physically female - - so I don’t see anything untoward or disingenuous in the Carol Christ’s remarks.</p>
<p>At some point, however, the college will have to deal with undergrad students who complete the surgery after having enrolled as female.</p>
<p>Even physically gender-reassigned students are still XX chromosomed. From a discussion I had with someone a while back, this is being used as the de facto standard: what you were born with, not what you were surgically adapted to be.</p>
<p>There are small enough numbers that I see some of the rhetoric as being more symbolic than of consequence.</p>
<p>Very respectfully, dad, I don’t consider myself symbolically a woman. Though, again respectfully, I do appreciate that others might do so for themselves.</p>