One of the anti-gay-marriage professors I linked to in the previous post is the University of Chicago’s Jean Bethke Elshtain. (Professor Elshtain is on the board of the Women’s Freedom Network, which is one of those anti-feminist think tanks with no actual accomplishments). According to her page on the Institute for American Values, when Ms. Elshtain taught at the University of Massachusetts “from 1973 to 1987, Elshtain drew fire for… allowing men in her Feminism classes.”
I find it extremely doubtful that this claim is true. When my housemate Charles attended UMASS (which was, admittedly, in the 1990s, a decade or so after Ms. Elshtain left), he took women’s studies courses and no one objected. As far as I know, Mary Daly – who was fired from Boston College for her refusal to teach co-ed classes – is the only women’s studies professor, ever, to take such a stand. (And even Daly taught men – she just put men in separate sessions.)
The story also seems unlikely since women-only classes at a co-ed public university would be illegal.
Still, maybe the story is truthful – I’m sure a lot of weird sparks in the pan happened over the years, especially in the early 1970s. Did any “Alas” readers attend UMASS from 1973-1987, or know someone who did?.
This sounds like classic resume-fluffing. The operative question is, “Drew fire from whom?” You can be absolutely certain that someone, somewhere complained at least one time about her teaching men along with women. The substance of the complaint, its seriousness, and the authority behind it are nowhere stated here. We’re left to infer them, and, in this case, to draw an obviously faulty inference.
Jason makes a good point. There is other evidence of trying to make a big story out of possibly inconsequential items. For example, the article indicates that she “drew fire” at U Mass– where she taught for 15 years,
Well, she may have “drawn fire” from someone, but she must have received tenure. She remained at U of Mass for quite some time. That is some sort of acceptance anyway.
I vaguely remember her. She was there for my first year at UMass.
And no, womens’ studies classes did not bar men. In fact, during my orientation, a male student encouraged the guys to take womens’ studies classes. The professors made it clear that men were welcome. We were encouraged to take elective classes in womens’ studies, African-American studies (many of which focused on art, literature, economics, politics, theory, and history), Asian-American studies, etc. While I was there, we had a diversity requirement that could be filled through many of these classes. I was not barred from a class about African Art or politics and the Muslim world. Men were not barred from women’s studies classes. That assertion is just so much crap.
I was at UMass in the mid ’90s and men weren’t banned from any classes that I knew of. I took 2 womens’ studies courses, one of which was titled “The Lesbian Experience”. Never had any problems.
That article was originally published in the “University of Chicago Magazine,” which turns out to be something put out by the university’s alumni office essentially to solicit funds from former students. I’m thinking that the journalistic standards in that kind of publication aren’t terribly high, for what it’s worth.
I am presuming this was at the main campus in Amherst MA. 1973-77 I attended another college in the area with a course-exchange agreement (the 5 colleges with course-exchange agreements and good bus service, allowing students to register for any course at any college, are UMass, Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke, and Smith). Separatism was a hot topic at my all-women’s school, I knew of many women’s study offerings at the different schools, and I never heard rumors of a particular class barring men. I didn’t go to UMass for a women’s studies-oriented class, since there were plenty of offerings at my own institution, but did go there for a few obscure classes (Byzantine Empire comes to mind). So I can’t say I remember a specific mention of Elshtain’s class with or without men – but she wasn’t a star then, either.
i know a number of UMass alumni & faculty… i’ve asked them about this & none of them could recall any specific incident wherein a professor “drew fire” for allowing men into their women’s studies class. i haven’t heard back from a few folk so maybe something will turn up, but i doubt it.
as Jason points out above, the claim is so vague as to be meaningless. “drew fire” could refer to anything from administrative reprimand to hecklers in the classroom. so, i think i would side with the “resume fluffing” assessment. then again, Sheelzebub’s “That assertion is just so much crap” has alot of resonance for me too… ;)
Now that I think about it, I can recall reading a Johns Hopkins newspaper from the 1970s, when the first “Afro-American History” classes were introduced. There was standing room only on the first day of class, as so many students had signed up. The professor, whose name I can’t recall, excluded the white students first.
Now… Of course I find this deplorable, but it certainly shows how far we’ve come in our understanding of race relations. Today such a thing could never happen at Hopkins.
I recall reading in a Johns Hopkins University newspaper that in the 1970s, when the first “Afro-American History” classes were introduced, there was standing room only on the first day of school. So many students wanted to take the class that there wasn’t room for all of them. The professor cut down the enrollment by eliminating all the white students first.
Now… I find this deplorable, of course, but it only goes to show how far we’ve come since then. If anyone tried that at Hopkins today they’d never get away with it.
My oops. I don’t remember any big moves to exclude men students from women’s studies classes either.
On the other hand, if she had a syllabus that ignored female experts and used male experts (particularly the psychoanalytical crowd), she may well have been resented as presenting herself as giving a course on feminism, as opposed to a course on (stereotypical) femininity. Yep, any general level women’s studies course that didn’t use 80%+ female experts would have been given some rude comments. But I don’t remember any huge brouhahas about syllabi either.
To quote from teh conservative Institute for American Values website bio of Elshtain:
At the University of Massachusetts, where she taught from 1973 to 1987, Elshtain drew fire for including male authors on the reading list, for allowing men in her Feminism classes, and for teaching an array of different feminist positions. “Most teachers of women’s studies presume that if you don’t see yourself as a victim, you’re in a stale of false consciousness, you’re ‘male-identified,'” Elshtain said at the time. She left for Vanderbilt, where she said the professors “recognize that feminism is in part an argument.”
AND WHERE THE STUDENT POPULATION IS NOTABLY CONSERVATIVE ON AVERAGE.
I attended Mount Hoyoke from 1995-99 and, by virtue of the 5 college exchange that NancyP mentions, even OUR women’s studies classes were open to men, despite the school itself being all women.
Thanks for that info. I’ve always assumed that men were kept out of those classes. Another misconception shot down.
Unlike so many of those who have commented about Dr. Elshtain on this site, I had the pleasure of taking “Feminist Politics” with Professor Elshtain in the mid 1970’s. There were approximately 25 students in this advanced seminar and one was male. He was a guy I knew from my one year living on campus and was an open and intelligent man. Many of the women in the class were hostile to his presence but Prof. Elshtain was gracious and welcoming to all in the class. Her presentations to the class were thoughtful, thought-provoking and well researched and supported. The level of excellence of scholarship was superior, she respected all her students and treated them as scholars even though many were clearly unable to attain such distinction. I was shunned by many of the students because I sat with Joe, our lone male participant. Some of my classmates were rather vocal and quite direct about their negative feelings toward Joe and myself. These were women who called themselves feminists. I felt sad for them, they were angry and hateful toward much of humanity. To this day I remember that class vividly and will always hold Dr. Elshtain in the highest esteem. She led us on a fascinating and well rounded inquiry into feminism and I remember and use much of what I learned from her and the books we read and critiqued.
Gee, a conservative professor who now belongs to an anti-feminist group was open and gracious to a guy in her dubious feminism classes. What a shock. How well-rounded she was, unlike those nasty hostile feminists.
but, but mediator marilyn……don’t all the “women who called themselves feminists” but are really “angry and hateful toward much of humanity” end up going to Smith or MHC instead? Or are there just that many of us?
One would hope that Elshtain would make sure the facts about her former employer were right, Marilyn. IOW–no men were barred from women’s studies classes. But I see you have ignored that and have chosen to fling about an anecdote about man-hating feminists. How interesting that you’d avoid the rather uncomfortable subject of your revered scholar lying.
Lying is a pretty hateful thing to do, IMO.
“Now that I think about it, I can recall reading a Johns Hopkins newspaper from the 1970s, when the first “Afro-American History”? classes were introduced. There was standing room only on the first day of class, as so many students had signed up. The professor, whose name I can’t recall, excluded the white students first.
Now… Of course I find this deplorable, but it certainly shows how far we’ve come in our understanding of race relations. Today such a thing could never happen at Hopkins. ”
———————————–
In these parts, there wouldn’t be any White students or barely any, to exclude. When I took Black Studies courses in history, Lit and sociology, there were only two White students in a class of about 40, and at least one always complained about there being no “white history/white lit/etc.” classes.
Then there was the episode where this White opinions writer for the campus newsrag took one ethnic studies class, attended only one day, behaved like an asshole eventually walking off in a snit, then trashed it in his weekly column including libeling the instructor. The only good thing about that mess is that alternative student newspapers began to spring up, besides the racist, sexist, homophobic main rag(the one paid for by students’ fees even those belonging to groups disparaged by the paper).
I’m not sure exclusion of the majority by a minority group(minority including women even though they are quantively in the majority) is really the same as the reverse. Or even comparable. In fact, I don’t think it is the same. People equate the two behaviors, while around them, society is so unequal. Men and women aren’t treated as equal. People of color and White people aren’ t treated as equal.
If they were treated as the same, then Prop 209(the so-called equality of race and gender amendment pased by California voters) would have been used equally btwn all the races, and both genderse rather than slanted to punish men of color and women(especially women of color) who were only just beginning to access governmental contracts and educational and teaching opportunities, opportunities in LE and other public sectors, etc.
I don’t mean it’s about condoning, or approving, which is a separate issue, but discussing the two behaviors as if they are of equal footing doesn’t seem like it’s honest in some way.
I guess I don’t understand feminism. I’m a guy and consider myself a feminist under the following definition; that men and women should be equals in each other’s eyes. This does not mean that a women will ever run a marathon in the same time as the best men. This is because men and women differ by an entire chromosome, which means a hell of a lot in so many ways. Men and women are evolutionarilty designed to be different. But who cares? Those women who hate men or think men and women have to be exactly equal in all ways are DENYING REALITY!! Guess what? Men and women are different in so many ways but are no doubt equal in the only way that really matters: in their humanity….
No, UMass men were never banned from classes in feminism that I remember – there just wasn’t much interest in attending. I remember one who bragged that it was a great place to pick up vulnerable women.
As I recall, UMass undergraduates were only discouraged from appearing at one kind of event. The pre-wed sorority sector tended to prefer Amherst College attendees.
Those women who hate men or think men and women have to be exactly equal in all ways are DENYING REALITY!! Guess what? Men and women are different in so many ways but are no doubt equal in the only way that really matters: in their humanity.
Here’s a tip, fool. Women hate men who introduce themselves by claiming they like the good feminists who don’t ‘hate men.’ Just a little clue by four.