Process – Page 2 – Forty Years: The History of Women at Bowdoin

Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

Shortly after the arrival of women at Bowdoin, the question of coed housing arose, and this collection of reports and an Orient (Bowdoin’s student newspaper) article documents the process of addressing the issue. In the book Going Coed, Susan L. Poulson notes that sexual segregation “on the eve of coeducation” was extremely prevalent on college campuses, including in housing (227), and Bowdoin was certainly addressing this issue of coeducational housing. The College was only a couple of years behind Harvard, whose housing became coed in 1970, and Rutgers and Georgetown, which had introduced coed housing even earlier, in the 1960s.

As demonstrated by the Student Life Committee’s Report from November 3, 1971 (Document EN, 24.1), Bowdoin was grappling with the concept of coeducational housing within just months of the arrival of matriculating women students at the college. The committee suggests three guidelines: all students can choose between coed and single sex housing, but the College does not guarantee that those students requesting coed housing will be assigned to it; dormitories will be coed by alternating floors, but due to the ratio of men to women at the college, there will likely be three floors of men to each floor of women; first-year students can request coeducational housing, but their parents will be notified.

The student newspaper was quick to pick up on this report and also quick to criticize the second guideline regarding coeducational housing by alternate floors in an article entitled “New Coed Housing Plan: Sexes Remain Separated” from November 15, 1971 (Document EN, 24.2). Despite these criticisms, nearly a year and a half later, in March of 1973, the “Student Housing” section of another Student Life Committee Report (Document EN, 24.3) notes that coed housing had been successfully implemented, that the “vast majority” of the class of 1976 had requested it, and that there was less damage in coed dormitories. The Pierce Report of 1969, which had recommended coeducation for Bowdoin, declares that “women would undoubtedly have a ‘civilizing’ effect” at Bowdoin (31-32), but this 1974 report speculates that the decreased damage is the result, not of women having a “taming influence” on men, but of students in coed housing seeing each other “as more of a family” and the building “as more of a home.”

EN24.1 Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

EN24.2a Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

EN24.2b Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

EN24.3a Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

EN24.3b Coeducational Housing Arrives at Bowdoin

Orient Poll on Coeducation

At the beginning of the second semester of the first academic year of official coeducation at Bowdoin, the college newspaper ran a poll to find out what students and professors were thinking about the new student body at Bowdoin. The poll results (Document EN 25.1), published in the Orient on February 4, 1972, paint a mixed picture of coeducation in its first semester. Although the poll results included a number of outright sexist responses to coeducation and to Bowdoin women, the actual poll numbers show that for the most part, students and professors supported coeducation and that the issues they took with it could be remedied.

In response to criticisms that the article providing the poll results focused too much on negative comments, an article was published in the following week’s Orient issue, on February 11, 1972, giving several examples of positive comments among the poll results (Document EN 25.2). As the author states, these comments are “based upon the assumption that coeducation is desirable and feasible.”

Similarly, two student-written letters to the editor of the Orient also from February 11, 1972 (Document EN 25.3) suggest that coeducation is a worthwhile endeavor for Bowdoin. The letters provide thoughtful reflections not just on the poll, but also on the situation of coeducation at Bowdoin. If the poll is discouraging, these letters and the February 11 article help show that, in fact, coeducation did have support and that at least some students saw it as an important improvement on the College.

Women’s Healthcare and Birth Control

Represented here are four interesting documents that all have to do with the issue of women’s health, in particular access to birth control and gynecological exams. First, a memorandum from the Ad Hoc Committee of Coeducation in 1972 addressed the fact that Bowdoin’s infirmary and counseling facilities were not equipped to deal with women’s issues (Document AK, 26.1). Moreover, the college had at this point failed to fulfill promises that women could obtain gynecological exams from the health center.

Following this discussion, the “Bowdoin Women’s Proposal on Gynecological Service” in May 1974 noted how surprising it was that Bowdoin did not have a more comprehensive health policy designed for women (Document AK, 26.2). These women claimed first that the few available health services were inadequate and male-oriented, and second, that the services were actually negligent, resulting in the misdiagnosis and failure to treat numerous gynecological problems. The women sensed a general reluctance from the infirmary staff to deal with the issue of birth control “because of their own traditional or moral values.” This “hesitancy,” they declared, was dangerous and unacceptable, and they demanded more and better health services for women. A letter from “Concerned Black Women” threw support behind this initial women’s claim, stating, “As black women, we would like to give our support to the womens group seeking to secure adequate health care for women on campus” (Document AK, 26.3).

Furthermore, a 1971 Orient article written by Jo Dondis exposed the fact that the college had no policy whatsoever with regard to birth control (Document AK, 26.4). Although in all of these cases the infirmary seemed willing to accommodate women on paper, in practice they did not deal effectively with the admission of women to the college and the special health needs this would bring. As a result, many women sought out or were referred to local clinics and gynecologists unaffiliated with Bowdoin. While this may have been adequate for some and even sanctioned by the college for others, it put an unfair strain on local clinics, as these women pointed out, and contributed to an overall sense that women did not exercise full citizenship in the Bowdoin community.

AK26.1a - Ad Hoc Committee on Women's Health Services

AK26.1b - Ad Hoc Committee on Women's Health Services

AK26.2a - Bowdoin Women’s Proposal on Gynecological Service

AK26.2b - Bowdoin Women’s Proposal on Gynecological Service

Getting Women Involved In Student Government

Following the 1972 Bowdoin College Student Council elections, Dean Paul L. felt compelled to bring to the attention of the council a major concern of his – the underrepresentation of women in student government. In this letter exchange, Dean Nyhus lamented the fact that no women had been elected in this crucial election, and recommended that the Council remain sensitive to the “specific barriers” preventing women from being represented as readily as men (Document AK, 27.1). Some of these barriers were the preexisting requirement that all fraternities be represented, thus reserving a certain number of spaces for men; the fact that, due to sheer numbers, any woman would need to gain many male votes in order to win (which would be especially difficult for first-year women); and the fact that women exchange students would not have arrived on campus yet at the time of the elections, which took place the semester before the next governing term. Dean Nyhus went on to say that not only would it “seem incongruous that an all male council should speak for women students […]” but the council should “provide for regular representation of women students” as a “friendly and receptive gesture,” if nothing else.

In response, Representative-at-large Kevin J. Tierney wholeheartedly disagreed with Dean Nyhus’s recommendation for the special consideration of women on the Student Council (Document AK, 27.2). Mr. Tierney claimed that to make special accommodations for women would undermine the “political axiom that the candidate who gets the most voters to the polls wins the election.” Furthermore, he was affronted by the assumption that the men of the council would be unable to make decisions about issues impacting women as well as any woman could. The fact that Council meetings were public and could be attended by any woman at any time served, for him, to assuage any concern that their views would go unrepresented. Mr. Tierney concluded by saying, “Any attempt to create special positions for women on the Council can only be regarded as patronizing and will not serve to increase fair and equal representation of all elements of the student population.” In the fall of 2011, forty years later, women hold only 11 out of 32 positions on the Bowdoin Student Government.

Addressing Women’s Security Needs

In the “Security” section of a 1973 Student Life Committee Report (Document AK, 28), the issue of campus security “as it affected women students in particular” came to the fore. Due to a number of reported “incidents,” and the fact that, with the increase in the size of the student body size, student housing was expanding further and further from the center of campus, an “escort service” – akin to today’s shuttle service – was implemented. Overall, the report recommended an increase in the total security presence on campus.

Interestingly, the need for this increase in security presence was described as a direct result of the addition of women to Bowdoin. The implication is either (or both) that women require more protection than men, and/or that men are more likely to commit crimes against women than against each other. Another interesting component is the mention of “incidents.” Though it is unclear whether these were particularly violent or sexual in nature, the type of “incidents” that might prompt a woman to seek an escort service at night were likely assault-oriented.

At the time, Bowdoin was not alone in beginning to recognize the need for sexual assault protection and support for women students. In the 1970s, feminists brought issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault to the forefront, on college campuses as well as in the larger society. In 2011, sexual assault awareness and prevention are central issues at Bowdoin, and the community has made a remarkable effort to keep this campus safe. Every year, “Consent Is Sexy Week” teaches Bowdoin students how to recognize and avoid sexual assault through various programs and events. Bowdoin’s Alliance for Sexual Assault Prevention (ASAP) is an umbrella title for the collaboration of various groups all devoted in whole or in part to these issues, including Bowdoin Men Against Sexual Violence (BMASV), VSpace, Vday, Peer Health, Safe Space, and the Bowdoin Queer Straight Alliance (BQSA).

AK28 - Addressing Women's Security Needs