<p>Interesting article. I Would be interested in other' thoughts on a broader level than just the Andover perspective. Seems to me like societal changes need to be made well before kids reach the age of 16/17 to instill more leadership qualities in young women, or probably more accurately, alter how leadership qualities are defined. It's sad that in a school full of intelligent and diverse students, only 4 females have been elected to the top student leadership role at the school in 40 years.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/education/phillips-andover-girls-leadership-debated.html?hp&_r=0%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/education/phillips-andover-girls-leadership-debated.html?hp&_r=0</a></p>
<p>Some commentary on the article by PA students/alums:
<a href=“http://courtjesterwisdom.■■■■■■■■■■/post/47756301411/getting-it-wrong[/url]”>http://courtjesterwisdom.■■■■■■■■■■/post/47756301411/getting-it-wrong</a>
[On</a> Andover, Gender Imbalance, and the NYTimes | Politicomedy](<a href=“http://politicomedy.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/04/12/on-andover-gender-imbalance-and-the-nytimes/]On”>http://politicomedy.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/04/12/on-andover-gender-imbalance-and-the-nytimes/)</p>
<p>And an piece on how the article’s author is a “serial misinfomer”
[Serial</a> misinformer Kit Seelye reportedly set to become NY Times “Web political correspondent” | Research | Media Matters for America](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/03/09/serial-misinformer-kit-seelye-reportedly-set-to/138246]Serial”>http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/03/09/serial-misinformer-kit-seelye-reportedly-set-to/138246)</p>
<p>Many people appear to be displeased with the article, as you can see. It is generating quite a stir on campus.</p>
<p>I think the co-president model is a viable one, but why not do it like SAS where rather than running as pairs, there are two separate positions - male co-president and female co-president.?</p>
<p>St. Mark’s School students and faculty elect 8 Monitors from the seniors each year–4 girls and 4 boys. </p>
<p>Andover could set up a dual presidency, one female and one male president. As student government positions are popularity contests much of the time, such a system would require a gender-neutral outcome.</p>
<p>Access to leadership positions is a frequently cited reason to attend single-sex high schools and colleges. At such schools, one does not have to deal with the supposition that women are not elected to leadership positions because they “lack leadership qualities.”</p>
<p>Although I agree with encouraging girls into leadership positions, I don’t think quotas really help. If girls are only runnng against other girls, it might not help them later in life into positions which aren’t held like this, and it may encourage the idea that girls do not have the skills to compete in a mixed election.
If a pair system is being used, why not make each pair mixed? Everyone would be running against each other, but there would always be a girl elected.</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree, UKgirl. I think that some social engineering is appropriate at the high school level to make sure that there are girls in leadership positions. It’s an influential time of life and it sets lifelong expectations about the roles that people see themselves in.</p>
<p>The topic of women and leadership is covered very well in Jennifer Seibel Newsom’s documentary, Miss Representation. [Miss</a> Representation](<a href=“http://www.missrepresentation.org/]Miss”>http://www.missrepresentation.org/)</p>
<p>I vote for equal representation of sexes. I feel it’s like affirmative action and Title IX. After thousands of years of male domination in leadership positions, whether they could be justified or not, one cannot expect the playing field to be level without some sort of remediation process. I hear, if we had more women in leadership positions, we would not have had the recent financial meltdown, from which we’re still suffering. I agree with it. I believe, given enough opportunities and development, women will do very well. I believe it’s better for the society.</p>
<p>As a male and a student at Andover, I think the NYT article on the gender debate is terrible. I’m happy that someone linked to the article by Sam Green. I thought it tore the NYT article to shreds, which is what needed to be done. </p>
<p>One of my problems with the NYT article is found in paragraph 9. The paragraph reads,“In an attempt to improve the chances of electing a girl president this year, the school dropped the single presidency in favor of two co-presidents.”</p>
<p>^That is a factual error. I know a lot of people in student council, and I asked them why the school changed to the co-presidency model. They said they changed the model so that the President could actually accomplish things.</p>
<p>Here’s a list of the errors the article made:
“An earlier version of this article misstated the most recent year that a girl was elected school president of Phillips Academy. It was 2003, not 2004. The article also misstated the number of teams in a recent election for school president that were made up of two boys. There were more than one. And the article also incorrectly stated that only young women sent a letter about gender equality to the student newspaper. Young men signed it as well.”</p>
<p>Even in this, there is one error. “Young men” didn’t only sign the letter about gender equality sent to the student newspaper–they co-authored it. The Times seems to want to make Andover out as a place filled with sexism and misogyny. </p>
<p>Here’s a great, thoughtful, but not very widely read article on the gender debate at Andover:
[Letter</a> To The Editor | The Phillipian Online](<a href=“http://www.phillipian.net/articles/2013/04/04/letter-editor]Letter”>Letter To The Editor: 040/07/2017 – The Phillipian)</p>
<p>I agree with a lot of what the author says in this article. The other point I’d like to make isn’t actually about gender inequality. It’s about this debate over the presidency.</p>
<p>I do think that gender inequality exists at Andover. Mr. Palfrey got it right when he said," We do not live in a post-gender, post-race, post-class society." We don’t at Andover.</p>
<p>But I don’t think that the role of the school president is as big of deal as everyone makes it out to be. The president doesn’t really DO much. They mainly give speeches. I’m not dismissing it entirely, but it’s really not that big of a deal. Even if they’re aggressively trying to change the school (which they’re not–they’re seniors and senioritis has sunk in), they’re still only high school students. </p>
<p>Point is, the presidential election wasn’t worth an article in the NYT about it.</p>
<p>Defense of the indefensible. :D</p>
<p>The New York Times article creates a false impression about Andover. One might read the Times article and conclude that young women dont hold any leadership positions at Andover. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, young women hold leadership positions on par with young men in virtually every campus organization and activity. </p>
<p>I dont know why the position of the president has been an exception to this general rule. But I doubt this anomaly arises from institutional sexism at Andover. Half the students and teachers at Andover and most of its administrators are women. The head of the school at Andover was a woman until her recent retirement. And, the Andover code of student conduct quite explicitly prohibits sexism of any nature. </p>
<p>The suggestion that Andover should institute a quota system to ensure the election of women to the office of the president would threaten the meritocratic principles of Andover where every student has the equal right to earn advancement without regard to their gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. It would also frankly be demeaning to the young women at Andover who are every bit as capable as their male counterparts.</p>
<p>[Christina</a> Huffington: Andover Election: The Girls Are Not All Right](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Andover Election: The Girls Are Not All Right | HuffPost Women)
This is a great article on the issue.</p>
<p>^That is a much more interesting article than the original discussion point. </p>
<p>@blueisbest There is sexism at Andover in the same way that there is sexism all across the developed world. Similar to there being no female presidents of the US, and only one UK prime minister (RIP). Girls may be treated equally in almost every way, but there is clearly an issue with top leadership positions, at Andover and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Almost every coed school in the UK will have a head girl and a head boy. Looking at it this way, instead of as a quota, makes much more sense. I didn’t even think of this before :)</p>
<p>Even at my daughter’s middle school, they have Co-Presidents… one boy, one girl. Not only is that fair, it evens out the workload on each person…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh! The ability to make decisions based on what the best thing is, rather than the popular or likeable thing is is one of the most important qualities of a leader, male or female. So don’t tell me that girls (or boys) who are worried more about being likeable than about leading have great leadership skills.</p>