Microsoft Word - Baylee A. Cox Thesis.docx

Make Way for the Tigress: An Analysis of Women-Centered Policy

Change at Princeton University

Baylee A. Cox

April 10, 2023

‘

A senior thesis presented to the Faculty of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts

Dedication

To all the Princeton women who came before me, believed this place could be better, and strove to

make it so. I am thankful for and inspired by your strength.

iii

Acknowledgments

To my professors and peers, thank you for academically challenging, teaching, and exciting me. I will

be forever grateful for the knowledge I have gained and for those from whom I have learned it.

I want to extend particular thanks to my advisor, Professor Lynda Dodd, for your valuable direction

and many insights provided during my thesis-writing process.

Thank you also to Professor Laura Edwards for introducing me to the horrors of anti-coeducation

alumni letters and–equally valuable– for the thoughtful guidance you have given me throughout this

project.

To my academic advisor, Dean Lipton, thank you for your invaluable academic support during my

time in SPIA. I will miss dropping by to discuss my courses for the next semester.

To Sally Frank, thank you for all that you have done for the women of Princeton. It was a privilege

to speak with you about this thesis.

To the wonderful staff and librarians of the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, I could not have

completed this project without your support. Mudd practically became my second home this year,

and I will miss your extensive archival knowledge and encouraging words.

To the friends I would not have met without Princeton and who will always constitute my most

cherished memories from the past four years, thank you for all the times we have commiserated and

laughed together.

Last, to my family, words cannot capture my gratitude for the love and support you give me every

day. In both challenging and joyful times, I am so thankful and blessed to always have you on my

team.

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................2

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................3

Chapter One

Can Girls Quote Chaucer? Princeton Lets Women in the Door .............................................................11

Chapter Two

Dining as Equals: A Legally-Won Right........................................................................................................39

Chapter Three

“A Frivolous and Trendy Enterprise”: Princeton’s Road to Women’s Studies......................................79

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................110

Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................................116

ABSTRACT

This thesis represents an in-depth analysis of Princeton University’s policymaking process as

it pertains to women-centered issues. Within its policy deliberations, Princeton often encountered a

fundamental tension between its traditionalist commitment to masculinity and its desire to appear as

a leading, prestigious, and societally-respected institution. Historically, how does Princeton respond

to this tension? In policy decisions which place traditional, alumni-lauded values at odds with its

perceived educational status, I will argue that the administration reveal a risk-averse tendency to

pursue a “middle ground” policy route. Given Princeton’s enduring culture of masculinity, the

women-centered policy developments analyzed in the present thesis provide key instances of

Princeton contending with opposing interests.

To arrive at my characterization of Princeton’s policymaking strategy, the present thesis

relies primarily on archival, primary-source-based analysis. Reports commissioned by the University,

internal correspondence, and numerous student-penned articles reveal priorities of Princeton

policymakers over the course of several decades. The policy developments analyzed are as follows:

the implementation of undergraduate coeducation at Princeton University, the coeducation of

Princeton’s social and dining clubs, and the creation of a Princeton women’s studies program. In

each case, Princeton took a risk-averse, middle road approach, pursuing policies sufficiently

progressive and academically enhancing so as to preserve its top-tier institutional status, yet

sufficiently moderate so as to avoid making overwhelming political statements or disgruntling

alumni. Ultimately, the present analysis offers a framework for understanding when and how

Princeton will be compelled to adopt progressive policies, an insight which can be applied to future

policy developments.

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of a University

The year Princeton University officially admitted women, then-President Robert F. Goheen

released The Human Nature of a University,

a book containing a compilation of his writings and

speeches. In it, Goheen takes a philosophical stance on the purpose of a university as an institution.

Though his arguments are not overtly linked to Princeton, they appear to coincide with the general

philosophy driving Princeton’s policymaking priorities and strategies. Goheen’s explicit explanation

of a university's ideal nature is for this reason a helpful lens from which to explain and view policy

choices made by Princeton during both his administration and after.

Goheen places “the University” as an institution on a pedestal, emphasizing it as a unique

haven of intellectual discovery while simultaneously acknowledging its fragility. Goheen describes

the University in almost hallowed terms, noting its unique role as “society’s main testing ground for

ideas. . . the surest agency men have yet found for this precious freedom-making activity.”

Further

emphasizing its uniquely important role to (and distinction from) general society, Goheen attests,

“The university must stand, in part, apart.”

I will argue that a desire to stay conspicuously atop a

pedestal of perceived and real academic acclaim and accomplishments greatly influences Princeton’s

policy decisions.

At the same time, Goheen believed that the maintenance of this precious role could be

precarious. He claims “. . . it must be recognized that a university is very easy to disrupt. . . all that

holds it together are good will, tolerance, and a common respect both for reason and for

reasonableness.” As Goheen saw it, a university’s stability could be usurped easily and, likely, by a

variety of possible forces. In the policy decisions to be discussed in the present analysis, Princeton

Robert F. Goheen, The Human Nature of a University, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).

Iind., 34.

Ibid., 34.

policymakers consistently attend to factors which could disrupt Princeton, whether by inhibiting

Princeton financially or impeding the further cultivation of its academically lofty, societally respected

Princetonian image.

Further Implications of Goheen’s Views: A Risk Averse Model of University Policymaking

The belief in fragility expressed by Goheen has implications not just for the fact that

Princeton policymakers will be cognizant of potential disrupters, but also for the degree to which said

disrupters weigh into policy decisions. As this thesis will show, Princeton administrators tend to

exhibit extreme risk aversion when creating new university policies, weighing disrupters heavily due

to the University’s perceived fragility.

As will be evidenced through the investigation of three distinct policy developments,

Princeton policymakers typically contend with a tension between, on one hand, their incentive to

protect and/or further the University’s status as socially and academically irreproachable, and, on the

other, their incentive to maintain adequate alumni support. Also of note, the present analysis will

reveal the way in which Princeton’s policy making decisions are often driven to a greater degree by

the policy’s appearance than by its actual predicted impact on the university’s quality.

Both sides of this tension can give rise to potential disrupters of which administrators are

wary; if alumni fail to financially support Princeton, the university cannot adequately carry out its

intellectual and societal functions. Challengingly, most new policies have the potential to garner

alumni disapproval, simply owing to the fact that novel policies will necessarily alter the Princeton

experienced by alumni, cherished for its masculinity and traditionality. Yet the failure to adopt new

policies can disrupt Princeton in myriad ways, such as by causing it to appear discriminatory or

antiquated, diminishing the quality of its student body, or preventing necessary social improvement.

The ideal (human) nature of a university as framed by Goheen cannot be improved by

stagnancy or pure maintenance; its very purpose necessitates progress. He describes the university’s

“cardinal function”

as being “a palace where searching inquiry and sober reflection are the order of

the day,”

also referencing the changes which its “searching inquisitive spirit” have inspired.

Rigorous inquiry is necessarily linked to progress and change. In other words, even if the university

wished to forego potential gains, focusing solely on pleasing alumni and maintaining its financial

backing, the retention of its fundamental purpose would be impossible. Thus, a challenging

policymaking balancing act must ensue.

Thesis Question and Focus

This thesis will investigate primary drivers behind policy decisions at Princeton concerning

women. Specifically, how does Princeton respond to the tensions that rise from longstanding values

of traditionality and masculinity held by alumni, on one hand, and its fundamental goal to be a

leading, prestigious, and societally respected institution, on the other? I will argue that Princeton is

necessarily constrained in each policy decision by financial-based alumni considerations; this “check”

on Princeton’s policymaking freedom contributes to its evident risk-averse approach to progressive

policymaking.

In order to answer the above question, I will present in-depth, primary source-based analyses

of three distinct women-centered policy developments at Princeton. Ultimately, Princeton will reveal

its risk-averse tendency to pursue a “middle-ground” policy route in decisions which place

traditional, alumni-lauded values at odds with its perceived educational status. With masculinity

being one of Princeton’s enduring traditional attributes, the women-centered policy developments

analyzed in the present thesis provide key examples of this aforementioned tension. Though more

positively motivated by concern for its status, Princeton may fail to pursue what would be the best

Ibid., 33.

possible route for its educational caliber when doing so threatens alumni financial support or could

be construed as overtly political.

A Closer Look at Alumni: Princeton’s Traditional Source of Funding

Princeton has historically experienced overwhelming success in the realm of alumni

relations. Of course, the quantity of money donated to a given institution by alumni is indicative not

only of the sentiments alumni harbor toward their alma mater but also the capability that alumni

have to donate. Yet, in a ranking created based on the criterion of college alumni giving rates (i.e., the

proportion of alumni that give any amount of money to Princeton), Princeton ranked first out of all

colleges in the United States.

Considering the years 2017 through 2019, U.S. News found Princeton

to have the highest “two-year average percentage of alumni donors,” with 55% of alumni donating.

Similarly, a “Grateful Graduate Index” based on magnitude of alumni giving created by Forbes

ranked Princeton third in the country, finding its “average alumni participation rate” to be 40.5%.

Princeton also held one of the highest “7 Year Median Private Donation Per Student,” at $23, 536.

Though imperfect measures, these statistics indicate that Princeton alumni feel particularly

connected to their alma matter, that Princeton policy skillfully prioritizes alumni relations, or (most

likely) a combination of both.

In the present Princeton policy analysis, the projected implications of a given policy action

on alumni relations, will be found to play a vital–though not dominant–role. A 1971, Princeton

President-commissioned Report of the Committee on the Future of the College explicitly stated the priority

given to alumni relations in the average policy decision: “today’s students are tomorrow’s alumni,

upon whose loyalty the University depends and will continue to depend for all kinds of support–the

Josh Moody, “10 Colleges Where the Most Alumni Donate,” U.S. News, (December 8, 2020).

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/universities-where-the-most-alumni-donate

financial support without which it cannot survive.”

Princeton is accustomed to operating off of the

generous alumni funding it has typically procured. The report’s invocation of the term “survive”

insinuates the absolutely essential value which Princeton places in the maintenance of its positive,

finance-reaping alumni relations.

Particular Challenges of Women-Centered Policy Change

As a historically male University, many alumni who attended Princeton prior to the advent

of coeducation in 1969 viewed masculinity as an integral component of their beloved alma mater.

Thus, the policy decision to admit women (the first of three general policy developments to be

considered in the present analysis) was particularly contentious. Additionally, as will be discussed, a

masculine culture continued to dominate many aspects of Princeton life (both academically and

socially) for decades after Princeton’s first class of women were welcomed on to campus. This,

coupled with the fact that many alumni felt connected to an all-male conception of Princeton

rendered the implementation of progressively women-centered policy changes a particularly complex

challenge for administration.

Aside from the difficulty in implementing policies contradictory to alumni’s tradition views

of Princeton, Princeton displays a particular hesitancy toward the creation of overtly progressive (or

“political”) policies. Goheen’s philosophy, expressed in his book, helps explain the university’s

cautious approach to progressive changes. In his discussion of the university’s purpose, he discusses

what he views as commonly-held, erroneous, conceptions of this purpose, expressing disapproval of

those who “incorrectly” “wish to ‘politicize’ the university and make it a direct instrument of social

struggle,” stating that such individuals “have little hesitation about inviting political and social

turmoil to the campus.”

Particularly, in earlier years, when women’s education was a greater matter

Bressler, M. (1973). Report of the Committee on the Future of the College. Princeton University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x1cc1

Robert F. Goheen, 33.

of controversy, policies promoting (or seen to be championing) women could appear overtly

political in nature. Goheen’s philosophy, which is relatively representative of Princeton’s displayed

overarching philosophy, will be particularly useful to bear in mind when analyzing the University’s

politicized decision of whether and when to create a women’s studies program.

There is a second insight to be had in Goheen’s sentiment in that it gestures toward the

value of the university as a peacekeeper; Princeton is hesitant to take actions which will incite unrest,

political or otherwise. This disinclination to be controversial or be a progressive “trendsetter”

further abets Princeton’s risk averse approach to policy change. However, the discrimination

towards controversy can sometimes conflict with Princeton’s reputational desire to be seen as a

leader in education. One manifestation of this tension will be seen in Princeton’s becoming

coeducational much later than many other American universities, yet expediting its coeducational

process to overtake one of its Ivy peers. The varied tensions between Princeton’s desire to be

uninflammatory and alumni-appeasing and its desire to cultivate an image as an admirable leader in

the educational world will repeatedly appear in the policy developments considered in the present

analysis.

General Structure of the Present Analysis

The oft-oppositional nature of Princeton’s priorities and its subsequently risk-averse

approach to policymaking will be exemplified in the discussion of three historical, women-centered

policy developments at Princeton University.

The first chapter will focus on the policy decision-making processing behind the advent of

undergraduate coeducation at Princeton in 1969. I will devote particular analytical attention to the

various competing factors at play, including educational quality and reputation concerns (factors

compelling Princeton toward coeducation), and alumni concerns, which in some ways compelled

Princeton away from coeducation and ultimately influenced the chosen coeducational policy. As the

decision to admit women was orchestrated entirely by administration, this historical instance offers a

straightforward look at how administration chooses to handle tensions between alumni

support/traditionality and improving its status.

The second chapter will focus on the coeducation of Princeton’s upperclassman social and

dining clubs, known as Eating Clubs. I will investigate the (student-activist, legal) drivers which

compelled the three remaining eating clubs to become coeducational; the enduring masculinity of

Princeton is discussed at length in this chapter and exemplified by two clubs failing to admit women

until 1991. A dominant focus of this chapter will be Princeton’s public response strategy to a

publicized lawsuit endangering the University’s image with claims of discrimination. The takeaways

from this chapter relate less to active decision-making (as in the coeducation analysis) and more to

how Princeton’s risk averse approach comes into play when it must publicly respond to a

controversial circumstances involving the University’s image. In this policy situation, the central

tension for Princeton lies in whether to speak out against its own Princeton-associated, alumni-

favored clubs (an action which could be inflammatory) or to fail to speak out against them, but risk

appearing discriminatory. I will show how the manner and slowness of Princeton’s response again

reflects its risk-averse approach.

The third and final policy chapter concerns the expansion of women’s studies (now, gender

and sexuality studies) into an official academic program at Princeton University. Although student

and faculty activists are an impetus for this policy development, the program’s development requires

administrative approval and oversight. In this instance, Princeton’s policymaking process is

“checked” not only by the perceived non-traditionality of an academic program championing

women but also but the political undertones of women’s studies. These considerations will play out

in Princeton’s hesitancy to institute a Women’s Studies program, failing to do so until 1981, after

many of its peers.

Finally, the concluding chapter will consider present-day Princeton, broadening the analysis

of women-centered policy change to implications for the implementation of progressive policies

more generally. I will suggest that tensions between alumni views and Princeton’s pursuit of

beneficially progressive policies are lessening naturally with time, as evidenced by Princeton’s

outwardly progressive policy initiatives taken in recent years. General progressive trends in society

also serve to make the passage of such policies less controversial, increasing the likelihood that

policies which are best for Princeton’s perceived status will coincide with those which are best for

Princeton’s actual educational and social quality. Looking to the future, Princeton has the potential

to actively decrease presented policymaking tensions (thereby increasing its freedom to make

beneficial policy changes) through cultivation of a student body which understands the value of

fundamental policy change to Princeton achieving its ideal academic and societal role.

CHAPTER ONE

CAN GIRLS QUOTE CHAUCER? PRINCETON LETS WOMEN IN THE DOOR

Introduction

After years of careful deliberation, Princeton allowed a small cohort of undergraduate

women to enter its male-dominated realm in 1969. At the time, coeducation was increasingly

common among American universities, but many “elite” institutions–Princeton included–were

prone to foot-dragging. From Princeton’s perspective, coeducation was an incredibly high-stakes

policy choice. Aided by close analysis of primary source documents, the present chapter will display

how the tension between status motives and alumni-based financial concerns shaped the

administrative policymaking process. I will ultimately reveal how Princeton’s choice to become

coeducational carefully attended to alumni relations yet was primarily driven by a desire to promote

its status as a high-caliber, educational leader.

As national trends in coeducation also influenced Princeton’s policymaking process, I will

first situate Princeton within the national historical context, detailing American trends in

coeducation leading up to Princeton’s eventual admittance of women in 1969.

(Financially-Driven?) Trends in American Coeducation

Though a dominant economic model suggests that most institutions’ decision to become

coeducational were overwhelmingly dictated by alumni-based financial concerns, there is reason to

think that Princeton’s decision-making process was distinct from this model; I will argue that alumni

relations served as a “check” on Princeton’s decision to become coeducational, rather than being a

dominant driver. Princeton was actively compelled by status concerns–namely a desire to retain top

applicants for the sake of its institutional quality and remain competitive with its Ivy League peers

(Yale, in particular.)

The 1960s and 1970s were a critical time for women gaining access to the United States’

most elite colleges and universities. The Ivy League and other similarly-renowned universities were

relatively late to coeducation in the grand scheme of national trends. Higher coeducational

opportunities for women began expanding steadily in the United States as early as the 1830s.

The

first college technically to exist as a coeducational institution, Oberlin College, began offering

coeducational classes in 1835. As public education moved west, the cost-effectiveness of

coeducation as compared with the establishment of separate institutions fostered the increase of

coeducational colleges and universities.

Though a robust analysis conducted by Harvard professors Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F.

Katz (2011) argues money to be the overarching driver behind general coeducational trends,

concerns for retaining alumni funding proved to be a check rather than a driver on Princeton’s

coeducation decision-making process. Key components of Katz and Goldin’s model do apply to

Princeton; for example, their collegiate database analysis finds that, “by 1960s the only force holding

coeducation in check was alumni . . . support for retaining the prior gender identity of the school.”

Princeton policymakers were keenly aware of alumni disapproval of coeducation, and alumni views

were carefully monitored.

However, the flip side of Katz and Goldin’s economic model holds that institutions (such as

Princeton) would choose to become coeducational only when the projected cost of refraining from

coeducation outweighed the projected loss in funding from disapproving alumni. According to their

rationale, a tradeoff existed between the decrease in contributions from current alumni and a

predicted decrease in future alumni contributions fostered by remaining single-sex. The model rests

Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, “Putting the ‘Co’ in Education: Timing, Reasons, and Consequences of College Coeducation

from 1835 to the Present,” Journal of Human Capital, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 377-417, (Winter 2011).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663277?origin=JSTOR-

Ibid., 413.

upon an assumption that the quality of student applicants available to a single-sex institution would

decline as top students opted to attend coeducational institutions, cultivating a student body with

inferior financial prospects. While data convincingly illustrates the sizable economic component

underlying national trends of single-sex schools becoming coeducational, the motivation behind

Princeton’s individual decision to admit women was more nuanced than Goldin and Katz’s analysis

indicates.

Complicating a Dichotomy: Princeton’s Relationship to Coeducational Drivers

In Princeton’s case, coeducation policy considerations fell into two general camps. Camp

one contained alumni-based concerns (which spurred hesitancy toward coeducation) and camp two

entailed status-based concerns, which compelled Princeton toward coeducation. As will be explored

in depth, coeducation had the potential to positively impact Princeton’s status in many ways; its

academic quality stood to gain from coeducation itself and from the higher quality applicants which

Princeton would retain. Implementing a coeducation policy in a timely manner would also allow

Princeton to overtake its elite peers as a progressive leader. On the other side of the tension, many

alumni saw coeducation as distastefully progressive, threatening Princeton’s financial alumni

relations.

In detailing Princeton’s careful efforts to balance both sides of this opposing equation, I will

depart from one historian’s conception of Princeton’s choice to become coeducational. Nancy Weiss

Malkiel’s, “Keep the Damned Woman Out:” The Struggle for Coeducation, details the transition of elite

higher educational institutions from single-sex to coeducational, including Princeton University. She

raises the following question of Princeton’s decision-making process: “Did Princeton really have the

needs and concerns of women in mind? Or was coeducation primarily a strategic move, a way of

retaining competitive advantage by strengthening the quality and educational experience of male

students?”

Her either/or dichotomy portrays the decision as either women-centered or, essentially,

strategically male centered, failing to parse out more nuanced possibilities.

What would such possibilities include? For one, the decision could be strategic in ways other

than a quest to retain quality male applicants, such as by aiming to maximize the university’s future

endowment (as suggested by Goldin and Katz). Perhaps other internal pressures were at play, such

as a demand for coeducation by students or faculty. It is also possible that administrators came to

feel that a coeducational environment would foster a better education for both men and women, a

possibility neglected by Malkiel. Rationale focused on advancing Princeton’s quality of education

could be further complicated by whether Princeton primarily sought educational acclaim or quality

for quality’s sake. I will ultimately conclude that, in Princeton’s desire to maintain its high

educational status, genuine concerns regarding its educational quality (for both men and women)

coalesced with more outward-facing strategic drivers.

For Princeton, primary outward drivers entailed societal pressures and desires to conform

(and in some cases, compete) with policy actions of the other Ivy League institutions. In the

findings of the above study, a key insight lies in the individualized nature of institutions’ choices to

become coeducational; it is not that the rest of the country became taken with notions of ideological

progressiveness which in turn engendered norms of coeducation. Rather, individualized, institution-

based factors–many of them monetary– compelled colleges to become coeducational to the point

that coeducation became the norm over time. Regardless of the roots of this altered world,

Princeton eventually ran the risk of appearing behind as it continued to deviate from a growing

trend, an outcome which would directly contradict Princeton’s goal of being viewed as a leader.

Nancy Weiss Malkiel, “Keep the Damned Woman Out:” The Struggle for Coeducation (The William G. Bowen Book) (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2016).

A Search for Internal Motives: Student Attitudes Toward Coeducation

Though President Goheen blatantly stated that student demand was not a factor in the

policymaking process,

coeducation was sufficiently popular among students and young alumni in

the late 1960s so as not to prevent Princeton from remaining single sex due to funding worries. The

existence of substantial demand for coeducation at Princeton was not definitively documented until

this time, as will be demonstrated via historical student-authored sources. The evolution of student

views also pertains to the present policy analysis in that students’ outward commitment to

maintaining Princeton’s traditionally rigorous, masculine atmosphere displays the value placed in this

particular Princetonian image. In many cases, students’ commitment to Princeton’s traditions echoed

alumni concerns attended to by Princeton policymakers.

According to the study presented by Goldin and Katz, most schools experienced a

significant level of popular demand for coeducation among students prior to becoming

coeducational.

When did Princeton acquire a discernible buzz in the air regarding coeducation

among students?

As other American colleges began to welcome women in the first half of the 1900s, student-

authored articles in the Daily Princetonian overwhelmingly regarded women and Princeton as

fundamentally incompatible. One article from 1940, though unrelated to admissions policies,

emphasizes the students’ commitment to maintaining Princeton’s masculine atmosphere. In it, the

author bemoans women’s recent infiltration of the Senior Singing events, conveying that women

were not welcome to partake in Princetonian activities in any capacity: “Strictly speaking, women

Robert F. Goheen, “Overcoming the Obstacles on the Road to Coeducation.” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 14, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19890414-01.2.26&srpos=30&e=------198-en-20--21-

byDA-txt-txIN-Robert+F.+Goheen+coeducation------

Goldin and Katz, “Putting the ‘Co’ in Education.”

have no place in the Princeton of tradition, the Princeton of ivy-covered buildings and Poe's run.”

This quote displays not just an aversion to women’s presence at Princeton but also the author’s

tradition-based rationale for his sentiments. He apparently views traditionality itself as a valuable

aspect of Princeton, romanticizing it with his “ivy-covered” description.

An October 1938 entry in

the “On the Nation’s Campus” section of the Daily Princetonian directly discusses the concept of

women’s admittance to Princeton. Said article describes a woman managed to gain entry to the City

College of New York “by a technicality in the ruling which does not admit women in the school of

liberal arts but which does not mention the school of technology.” In a concerned tone, the author

inquires “Can Princeton’s regulations be fool-proof?”

apparently deeming it a mistake to admit

women.

In contrast to the views displayed by these student authors, a 1940 annual poll taken of

seniors indicated a surprisingly favorable view of coeducation. As reported by the Princetonian, one

question asked seniors “If you ran the University, what improvement would you make?”

Among

the four answers reported, “make it co-ed,” was the first. The quantity of seniors which responded

with this suggested change was not revealed, yet coeducation as the first-listed response indicates its

popularity. Of note, “yes or no” survey questions presented in the Princetonian often provide vote

counts which tallied to roughly 400 seniors, a significant portion of the graduating class. We are

denied insight into the students’ rationale; possibly, they desired a coeducational University for

“Save our Steps,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 3, 1940.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19400503-01.2.18&srpos=2&e=------194-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Princeton’s commitment to traditionality will often be a consideration in its policy decisions, something which I will continue to

explore in following chapters.

“On the Nation’s Campus,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 12, 1938.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19381012-01.2.24&srpos=38&e=------193-en-20--21-

byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

“1940 Selects Welch Popular Professor: Phi Beta Kappa, Varsity P, and “Prince” Rated in that Order by Vote of Senior Class,”

Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 27, 1940.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19400427-01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1-byDA-txt-

txIN-1940+Selects+Welch+Popular+Professor------

purely social reasons. Yet, despite the poll results, opinions explicitly expressed by Princetonian writers

often failed to coincide with the apparent support for coeducation on campus. I attribute this to a

general consensus regarding Princeton’s value of traditionality and masculinity, fostering a hesitancy

to outwardly express views which contradict such values.

Corroborating the interpretation of these 1940 survey responses as indicative of

longstanding suppressed student views rather than of a turning point in attitudes toward women,

articles written well after 1940 continued to disparage coeducation. One 1949 Princetonian article

reports on (and critiques) Harvard Law’s decision to admit women. Addressing his fellow

Princetonians, the author remarks: “Have courage, men of Princeton, for two women have

infiltrated the ranks of the Princeton faculty, and maybe the inevitable Tiger co-eds will appear in

the next few years.”

“Infiltrated” conveys an insidiousness and enmity wherein women slither into

a community where they are not wanted. The article’s author again venerates Princeton’s male-

dominated atmosphere.

As some level of student support for coeducation was seen as early as the 1940s, one might

expect to see substantial support by the 1960s, an era featuring the proliferation of coeducation

among prestigious colleges and universities.

Yet, outwardly stated student opinions from this

period continued to express antipathy toward coeducation at Princeton. As will be demonstrated,

dissenters of women were by far the most outspoken, but they likely failed to represent the true

majority opinion. While possible that anti-coeducation students were simply more passionate, it

seems more likely that the greater comfort with which students opposed coeducation was fostered

by Princeton’s conspicuous, enduring celebration of masculinity and tradition.

“Harvard Law School to Admit Women,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 11, 1949.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19491011-01.2.3&srpos=7&e=------194-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women----1949--

According to Goldin and Katz, 36 of the top 50 institutions in the United States (as per the U.S. News and World Report) were

coeducational as of 1960.

At least when aware that their opinions would be made public, students in the early 1960s,

continued to vocally oppose a coeducational Princeton, as evidenced by a 1962 student-conducted

interview. The Princetonian reporter drew upon a Yale faculty committee recommendation that

women be admitted to Yale, asking if “Princeton University should do the same?”

Overwhelmingly, the Princeton students interviewed responded in the negative. Even a student who

acknowledged “dearth” of women on campus,” ultimately concluded that he did not mind if “the

scholarly and frigid type”

of women were confined to Yale. His response framed women on

campus as purely social, and he seemingly felt “scholarly” women would offer minimal enjoyment to

Princeton men, rendering women’s admittance pointless. Other students interviewed offered a

variety of reasons for being against women at Princeton, including beliefs that women would drag

down the academic standards, prove a problematic distraction to men, and “destroy the. . . male

atmosphere” of Princeton. With not one man interviewed responding in favor of coeducation,

either demand was lacking or those in favor of coeducation felt disinclined to speak up.

One enduring Princetonian opposition to coeducation was the belief that coeducation was

incongruous with high quality education.

In 1965, just two years before Princeton’s president

would request a formal consideration of coeducation as an option at Princeton, a senior-authored

think piece in the Daily Princetonian revealed this mistaken yet enduring belief. Senior James M.

Markham discusses the tendency to view coeducation as a purely social prospect: “When he hears

the word "coeducation," a Princeton student instinctively thinks of one of the vast state universities,

perhaps that of his home state, where a student's social life is assiduously developed — usually to

“Question of the Week,” Town Topics, (Princeton, NJ), April 29, 1962. cetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19620429-

01.2.85&srpos=19&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Ibid.

Also of note, this article functioning as a direct response to Yale gestures toward the emphasis which these two schools placed on

each other’s actions, something which will be a relevant driver of Princeton becoming coeducational.

Discussed earlier, this belief was expressed by Professor Michael back in 1948.

the detriment of his education.”

Markham takes a rare public stance against arguments which

presume that coeducation cannot coexist alongside maintenance of an “intellectual climate.” Peers

interviewed by Markham confirm the prevalence of this argument; after conducting various

interviews, Markham noted that “many [Princeton students] seem to have little confidence or

interest in the female intellect.” He quotes one student as assuming, “Girls, I bet, couldn’t quote

Chaucer intelligently,” and another as confidently generalizing that “Women aren’t profound

thinkers.”

While students held women in low intellectual esteem, they also tended to complain

about Princeton’s drab social scene, with one freshman complaining, "Social life is inadequate in

freshman year," and a Senior sharing, “as an underclassman. . . l thought there was a justified

dichotomy between studies and dates. Now I feel everything would go better if I had more dates I

liked." These comments indicate that any desire for women on campus was likely rooted in social

desires. The majority of students interviewed by Markham outwardly opposed coeducation for

education’s sake, choosing to suffer socially and preserve Princeton’s academic vigor. The largely

anti-coeducation commentary made by students through articles and interviews failed to accurately

capture the study body’s views.

In contrast to opinions detailed in Markham’s article, a 1967 poll of undergraduates

conducted by the “Experimental College” that same year found that 49% of students favored

coeducation compared to the 44% who opposed it.

Markham’s frank commentary offers a

convincing explanation for the apparent discrepancies between voiced student opinions on

coeducation and polling-obtained data. He explains: “Although everybody likes to complain about

James M. Markham, “A Diagnosis of Princeton’s Social Illness,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 8, 1965.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19650108-01.2.6&srpos=4&e=------196-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation------

Markham, “A Diagnosis of Princeton’s Social Illness.”

Richard K. Rein, “Poll Reveals Support for Reform of UGC,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 7, 1967.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670207-01.2.8&srpos=7&e=------196-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-student+support+coeducation------

the Princeton Monastery, almost all Princeton students are at least a little proud of their splendid

isolation —and prepared to defend Princeton's "atmosphere" and "tradition.” When interviewed or

writing public articles, Princeton students expressed their commitment to rigor, while many likely

desired women on campus for company’s sake.

When coeducation was framed positively by students, it was often for social merits. When

fifteen undergraduate women were permitted to enroll in an Undergraduate Program for Critical

Languages in 1967, an article describing their presence on campus was informatively entitled:

“Critical Language Girls Add Flavor to Monastic Existence of Students.”

This construal of women

on campus suggests that their male counterparts viewed them as little more than an exciting treat to

brighten a lackluster social atmosphere. In sum, most Princeton students of the late 1960s desired

women for social purposes, while believing that a feminine presence would be destructive to

Princeton’s rigorous academic culture. The tendency for articles and public opinions to disparage

coeducation was largely indicative of Princeton’s lauded masculine, rigorous, traditional culture and

the student-felt duty to preserve it.

Faculty and Administrative (Social) Views on Coeducation

Faculty of the 1940s, again for social as opposed to academic rationales, shared a degree of

the student openness toward coeducation evidenced by the 1940 survey. In 1948, an alumnus from

the class of 1935 argued in the Alumni Weekly that Princeton should consider admitting women. A

Princetonian article published after the letter’s receipt included a couple of notable faculty responses.

Economics Professor Wilbert Moore reported agreeing with the alum letter, deeming it

developmentally “healthier” for college-aged men and women to live together, misogynistically

This is to say nothing of the fact that students who held such views were misogynistically mistaken in believing that academic

quality and rigor would be necessary causalities of admitting women.

Robert L. Herbst, “Critical Language Girls Add Flavor to Monastic Existence of Students,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), June

15, 1967. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670615-01.2.13&srpos=51&e=------196-en-

20--41-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

adding that he knew “from pretty reliable sources that some of the professors wouldn't mind seeing

a co-ed or two around here once in a while.”

Professor Moore favored the admittance of women–

in part– for misogynistic, selfish reasons, apparently referring to his own or fellow professors’ desire

to have young women around for unsavory proposes. Psychology professor William Michael

echoed Moore’s more legitimate point, deeming it socially and developmentally beneficial for college

students to live in proximity and “prepare themselves for later life.”

However, he comes out in

opposition to coeducation, believing it would be of academic detriment to the University despite its

social merits: “I think it is obvious that from the standpoint of mere scholastic success, coeducation

does not show up too well because of the numerous distractions involved.”

Further dismissing the

merits of coeducation, Princeton’s 1948 Dean of Admissions said of the alumni letter that he could

not “take that sort of thing seriously.”

As will be discussed later in this chapter, consensus would

shift to recognize the academic merits of coeducation by the time Princeton was seriously

considering the policy in the 1960s.

Commentary made by faculty likely contributed to the outward student commitment to

maintaining Princeton’s traditional masculinity evidenced in Markham’s article. In 1961, Princeton

admitted its first ever female graduate student, Mrs. Sabra Follett Meservey, pursuing a degree in

“Oriental studies.” In a statement released shortly after her admittance, Dean of the Graduate

School Donald R. Hamilton issued a disclaimer that “Princeton may admit other women in the

future as special cases but does not plan to make general admissions of women graduate students. It

has no residential facilities for women students.”

Similarly, though Princeton admitted four

Richard I. Mayes, “Mere Suggestion of Co-eds Arouses Faculty Comment,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 3,1948.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19481203-01.2.3&srpos=29&e=------194-en-20--21-

byDA-txt-txIN-co%252Ded+------

Ibid.

“Dean Clarifies Official Policy of Grad School,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 18, 1961.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19610418-01.2.23&srpos=11&e=------196-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

additional women to the graduate school the following year, the assistant dean publicly maintained

that “only women for whom it is particularly and peculiarly appropriate to do work at Princeton,”

would be given admittance [emphasis added]. He emphasizes that, under typical (or non-peculiar)

circumstances, women’s presence was ill-suited to Princeton. Predominant Princeton faculty of the

early 1960s appeared devoted to maintaining Princeton’s masculine status.

Yet, by 1967, the same year Princeton students were polled as favoring coeducation,

Princeton faculty exhibited similar sentiments. In April, a survey found "overwhelming faculty

approval of some form of coeducation at Princeton.”

One might question if, perhaps, some unseen

force compelled a shift in faculty opinion between the early and later 1960s. Without parallel polling

data from the earlier years, no conclusion can be definitively drawn. However, it seems more likely

that the outward commitment to Princeton’s single-sex status failed to reflect the views of the

general body of faculty. As far as the Dean and Assistant Dean knew, coeducation was not yet on

the table for Princeton, and their public commentary was in line with such a belief.

On the other

hand, as early as the 1940s, faculty recognized the social benefits of coeducation, making it entirely

plausible that the faculty support measured in 1967 was a natural product of time and increased

commonality of coeducation.

Though 1967 was also the year in which President Robert Goheen requested a report on the

feasibility and merits of coeducation from the Princeton Board, Goheen’s actions were not

substantially influenced by campus views. Instead, I will argue that he was chiefly motivated by a

James H. White, “Graduate School to Admit Four More Women in Fall,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 5, 1962.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19620405-01.2.7&srpos=17&e=------196-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Robert L. Herbst, “Coed Survey Returns Indicate Overwhelming Faculty Support,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April

26,1967. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670426-01.2.10&srpos=21&e=------196-en-

20--21-byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation+at+princeton----1967--

In 1965, President Goheen publicly made a comment which indicated his indifference toward coeducation, to be discussed in the

following section.

desire to remain competitive with the other Ivy Leagues and, specifically, beat Yale to the

coeducation punch.

Princeton v. Yale: President Goheen’s Evolving Stance on Coeducation

Yale’s proclaimed intention to admit women was the decisive driver behind Goheen’s 1967

prioritization of coeducation. In 1966, President Robert Goheen became compelled to seriously

consider admitting women to Princeton. As he will claim, it is likely that Goheen ‘s openness toward

coeducation was influenced somewhat by Goheen’s perception of shifting roles of women in society

and national trends in coeducation. (These factors were likely influential in generating faculty

approval as well.) However, he was overwhelmingly concerned with overtaking Yale.

President Goheen was initially indifferent regarding coeducation at Princeton. In a reflective

Princetonian piece authored by Goheen, he acknowledges that coeducation “was not even a dream on

my agenda when I entered that office.”

As late as 1965, he recalls responding to a reporter asking

him for his thoughts on coeducation that “Princeton had no problems coeducation would cure,”

not necessarily belying an opposition to coeducation as a general issue but certainly denying its status

as a priority. What changed sufficiently for previously-indifferent Goheen in the 1960s to prompt

him to request that Princeton take definitive action to investigate coeducation?

According to Goheen’s public comments, an increasing awareness of “the claims of women

to a fairer, fuller place in business, education, the professions and public affairs” coupled with the

rising tendency for top male applicants to choose coeducational colleges to “tip the balance toward

education of women” for Goheen.

Interestingly, he cites 1966 as the year in which his attitude

toward the importance of coeducation changed, yet both of the supposed primary factors were

Robert F. Goheen, “A President Recalls Coeducation,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 13, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19890413-01&getpdf=true

Ibid.

gradual, continuous developments. It seems there could have been some other specific event acting

as an impetus which Goheen failed to mention. He offers insight to this end in an additional piece in

which he states that the timeliness of Princeton’s operation to admit its first women “prevented Yale

from upstaging us with its move to coeducation at the same time.”

Princeton’s competition with

other Ivy League schools, particularly Yale, dominated the mind of Goheen, a key player in

Princeton policymaking. Unsurprisingly, Yale took conspicuous actions regarding coeducation in

1966 , directing Goheen’s attention to the matter. The 1966 report of the committee on Yale College

of the university council “advocated the admission of women to Yale College.”

Sources in the Yale

archives (as procured by Nancy Malkiel) indicate that the corporation rapidly affirmed the council’s

recommendation, resolving: “The Corporation recognizes the need for high quality education for

women, and is interested in exploring how Yale might contribute to meeting this need.’”

With

Yale’s position on the matter publicly staked, Goheen deemed it in Princeton’s interest to not just

follow but, ideally, overtake Yale in its pursuit to gain women.

Goheen also conveyed that student or faculty demand for coeducation failed to factor into

his shifting stance. One portion of his reflection on coeducation states:

I do not recall our internal administrative decision in favor of coeducation being

made under any sort of external pressure — other than that of the two changing sets

of societal circumstances already mentioned. The 'Prince' at times, to be sure,

lamented Princeton's all-maleness, but if a strong sentiment in favor of coeducation

was widespread through either the student body or the faculty, it never came to my

attention until we were well along into the process of bringing coeducation about.

The fact that President Goheen was not, at least initially, aware of the Princeton community’s views

on coeducation ascertains their lack of influence on his actions.

Goheen, “Overcoming the Obstacles on the Road to Coeducation.”

Malkiel, “Keep the Damned Women Out,” 62.

Ibid.

Goheen, “Overcoming the Obstacles on the Road to Coeducation.”

Goheen’s 1967 request for a report investigating the merits of coeducation at Princeton

ultimately procured the Patterson Report, which Goheen later referred to as “invaluable” and

boasted that “Nothing like his study had ever been done.”

Indeed, this report would prove

instrumental in compelling Princeton policymakers to admit women. Goheen also emphasized how

other institutions, including Yale, drew on it “heavily.” Comparison between Princeton and other

elite institutions clearly colors Goheen’s general impressions of Princeton’s coeducational process

and achievements. Goheen’s mounting attention toward coeducation was rooted in maintaining

Princeton’s educational status; he wanted to avoid Princeton either losing out on top applicants or

appearing behind the times, and thus, inferior to its peer institutions.

Evidently, Goheen desired that Princeton not just remain competitive but also overtake

other schools. Princeton’s sustained attraction of quality candidates would have been minimally

impacted by a one-year delay in coeducation; besting Yale by one year offered bragging rights but

was unlikely to offer a real competitive advantage (in Malkiel’s sense of the term.) Clearly, Goheen’s

decision to consider coeducation was driven by a desire for Princeton to appear as a leader.

The Patterson Report’s Treatment of Women

In order to determine which factors transformed the concept of coeducation from an area in

need of further study into reality, the report requested by President Goheen in 1967 warrants close

analysis.

The committee conducting the “searching study of the advisability and feasibility of

Princeton’s entering significantly into the education of women” was headed by Professor Gardener

Patterson, (head of the then-Woodrow Wilson School) resulting in the report being dubbed “The

Patterson Report.”

Ibid.

While monetary considerations and alumni support (or lack thereof) also bear consideration as potential factors in Princeton’s

decision-making process, they are explicitly considered primarily after the Patterson Report’s publication. Thus, they will be analyzed

following my discussion of the Patterson Report.

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report,” Princeton Alumni Weekly 69, (September 24, 1968).

Ultimately, the Patterson report favors admitting women to Princeton for “strategic”

rationale, attending to the maintenance of Princeton’s excellent academic status. Patterson’s

conclusions are built upon a belief that a coeducational atmosphere will increase the quality of

education while simultaneously helping Princeton to attract top applicants.

Despite historian

Nancy Malkiel’s interpretations of the report, it would be unfair to say that Patterson fails entirely to

consider women; though not devoted to admitting women for the broad sake of furthering women’s

rights, Patterson honestly acknowledges the capacity for women to strengthen Princeton and,

provided that women join the undergraduate body, emphasizes the importance of doing justice to

female students.

In his discussion of the academic implications of coeducation at Princeton, Patterson does

not waste time debating whether women would be competent or intellectual enough to prove

desirable for Princeton, bluntly stating: “The ability of women fully to participate in the intellectual

life of the University cannot be contested.” In her book on coeducation, Malkiel professes herself

struck by “how little of the discussion of the Patterson report focused on the education of women”

and highlights a quote from Patterson blatantly acknowledging the committee’s approach as

focusing on whether “the Princeton of the future need[s] women” as opposed to focusing on

whether “women need Princeton.”

Malkiel’s commentary coupled with this quote in isolation

suggests that Princeton did not, in fact, have the needs and concerns of women in mind. However,

upon close inspection of the Patterson report, I argue this not to be the case.

Patterson’s failure to extensively discuss separate educational accommodations or

adjustments necessitated by the admission of women, in fact, does women a justice. Instead of

treating women as a class fundamentally different from (and perhaps inferior intellectually to) men,

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report,” Princeton Alumni Weekly 69, (September 24, 1968).

Malkiel, “Keep the Damned Women Out,”171.

he regards their comparable abilities and intellect as a given. At one point he critiques the argument

that women would spoil Princeton’s pure opportunity for men to “live the life of the mind” in favor

of coeducation, or what opponents refer to as “an experiment in living.”

Patterson argues, “But

this surely misstates the choices. Women, too, often wish for a time to “live a life of the mind” and

the ability of both men and women fruitfully to do so is often enhanced by the presence of other

humans. . . regardless of sex. Indeed, the recognition that this activity is not sex-linked would seem

to us an exceedingly important result of a liberal education.”

The defense provided under the

heading “Can Princeton Do Justice to Women Students?” constitutes a relatively short component

of the overall report. However, when regarding women as equals to men, this section need not be

long. From the perspective of Princeton faculty and administrators, Princeton is an excellent

institution with excellent resources and instructors which would be well-suited to “the excellent

women students we anticipate would seek admission” just as they were well-suited to the male

students. Patterson does regard women as sufficiently different from men to render potential

expansions in the creative arts and majors but ultimately concludes “that no massive curricular

changes would be needed.”

Thus, by recognizing women’s fundamental equality to men in terms of

their intellectual prowess and ambitions, Patterson need not agonize over how a woman’s education

at Princeton would look.

The Patterson Report on Competitive Advantage and Maintaining Princeton’s Status

Oft-cited educational concerns of coeducation, such as women’s tendency to “distract” male

peers or to complete their degrees at lower rates than men, are refuted by Patterson quantitatively. A

survey of Princeton men found that 76% would not find it “distracting or inhibiting to have a

substantial number of women” in the classroom, and data from coeducational institutions illustrates

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report.”

Ibid.

Ibid., 19

that women no longer drop out at higher rates. As previously shown, Princeton students historically

claimed that women would academically disrupt the atmosphere. Yet, when asked if he, personally,

would find women distracting, most men responded to the negative. This indicates that anti-

coeducation rhetoric was based in an enduring tendency to conflate Princeton’s academically

rigorous atmosphere with its masculinity, not actual, individual beliefs that women would be a

distraction.

The report’s rationale is also concerned with Princeton’s ability to attract top candidates.

Patterson implemented polling to illustrate that as high-performing high schoolers continued to

express increasing desire for attending a coeducational institution after graduation. Citing the

competitive advantage it would give Princeton to have women, the positive impacts of coeducation

on the educational/classroom experience, and the high levels of support for coeducation among

Princeton faculty, Patterson deems it desirable that Princeton “admit a significant number of

women.”

The ideal number of women to be admitted was found to be at least 1,000. On one hand,

Patterson finds that admitting women in “very small numbers,” would cost less, and it would

effectively break the all-male stigma/discriminatory admissions practices without causing the uproar

of admitting women in greater numbers. It would also “permit experimentation” from a policy

standpoint. Yet, he provides more compelling data in favor of admitting a significant number of

women; women tend to be less active participants and afraid to make mistakes when they constitute

an extremely small minority. From a social standpoint, small numbers were also found to be

problematic, as resentment could breed between men vying for women’s attention and the women

could be overwhelmed with social pressure. In weighing these two options, Patterson comes out in

favor of admitting a significant number of women in addition to the current numbers of

undergraduate men–Patterson was asked by Goheen to assume that the current number of men per

class would not be reduced. Despite Patterson’s argument, Princeton initially admits a small number

of women in order to become coeducational more quickly, indicating competition with Yale as more

influential than the desire to cultivate the most quality educational experience. In this instance,

Princeton is more motivated by appearing educationally superior than being educationally superior.

Alumni Relations as a Policymaking Check

Cost, though secondary to concerns regarding status, was a necessary consideration in

Princeton’s policymaking process. The report contains a detailed consideration of the impact on

what Patterson refers to as “Alumni Relations” but could be more aptly titled “Alumni Financial

Support.” His analysis bears some resemblance to the tradeoff proposed by Goldin and Katz,

though he does not directly reference the quality of applicants. As opposed to drawing a causal

arrow between quality of student and likelihood to be prosperous and contribute, Patterson instead

links the students’ personal identification with the university to their prospects for “continuing

[financial] interest in the welfare of the University.”

Using slightly different reasoning, he reaches

similar conclusions to Katz and Goldin by determining that, given the increasing demand for

coeducation, it may prove better for the University's long-term financial welfare to acknowledge this

demand and admit women than continue to foster the “strong bonds of male friendship”

which

historically compelled alumni to donate.

Patterson notes having received a few letters threatening to cease donating if Princeton

admitted women but maintains that “even assuming coeducation proved to be an unpopular move

with many present alumni”

annual giving would likely remain acceptable. To support this claim, he

cites how various on-campus happenings have been unpopular with alumni yet failed to negatively

impact giving. Though acknowledging the comparatively greater significance of coeducation,

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report,” 18.

Ibid.

Patterson also suggests that “any major on the campus” has the potential to draw alumni’s greater

attention and, subsequently, their money. Through noting that younger alumni tend to favor

coeducation at Princeton and that “the largest absolute number of alumni are in these younger

groups,”

Patterson assuages worries centered around a potential blow to the contributions made by

current alumni While certainly deeming alumni-based financial concerns as worthy of consideration,

the Report does not project that such costs warrant abstaining from coeducation. His discussion of

money is not concerned with how best to expand Princeton’s profits; instead, Patterson is more

concerned with ascertaining that costs need not prevent Princeton from coeducating. The key

reasons given in favor for coeducation are more centered around Princeton’s maintaining and

furthering its educational quality and reputation.

A separate money-centered consideration was that of federal funding. William G. Bowen,

Princeton’s Provost at the time, was a key player in the advocation for and implementation of

coeducation policies at Princeton. Prior to the report’s completion and release, a 1967 letter from

Bowen to Patterson bluntly stated: “My guess is that “equal rights” for women is going to have a

good deal of political appeal, and that the chances for Princeton receiving funds from either the

State government or from the Federal government will be considerably enhanced if we can free

ourselves of the charge that we “discriminate” in favor of men.”

Even the subject of Bowen’s letter places “discrimination” in quotations, connoting a

disbelief that Princeton is discriminating in the negative sense of the word. Bowen conveys that he

personally passes no critical judgment on Princeton for its current exclusion of women. Yet, he

thinks that Princeton would do well to avoid the appearance of discrimination for funding’s sake. He

links his argument to the worry that Princeton could lose alumni support, stating “. . . our ability to

Ibid.

William G. Bowen to Gardner Patterson, February 19, 1967, Committee on the Education of Women at Princeton Records, Box 1,

Folder 3.

draw more funds from the public will be enhanced by educating women. . . this effect may well

offset whatever price we pay in terms of reduced alumni support.”

Though Patterson fails to

incorporate questions of federal funding in his report, Bowen’s insights display how general concern

expressed for Princeton’s image as sufficiently progressive was prevalent in the policy decision

making process for both monetary reasons and pure reputation’s sake. Princeton tends to treat

money as a means for furthering its educational quality and status, rather than as an end. While it

must take care to maintain sufficient funding for upkeep and progress, Princeton does not appear to

operate from a funding-hungry position.

Continued Monitoring of Alumni Concerns

Of note, it may seem unnecessary to commend Patterson and his committee for regarding

women as intellectual equals in their analysis. However, even in the late 1960s, coeducation skeptics

(and perhaps even society in general) were still inclined to treat and speak of women as a cohesive

class distinct from men. This phenomenon is evidenced by various alumni letters sent in the wake of

the Patterson Report’s recommendation that Princeton admit women. Arthur J. Horton, a trustee

well known for his staunch, outspoken stance against coeducation, received and collected substantial

quantities of sympathetic letters.

Alumni letters demonstrated both strong ties to Princeton’s traditional masculinity and

misogynistic conceptions of women. Some letters expressed enduring beliefs that women were more

likely to drop out to pursue domestic lives (an inaccurate conception disproved in Patterson’s

report). Others regarded women as less professionally ambitious than men. One alumni seemingly

against women’s education in general (as opposed to just coeducation at Princeton) maintained “a

womans [sic] place is in the home A girls [sic] greatest ambition is to get a good husband.” Mr. Irwin

goes on to fret about women and their silly femininity rendering Princeton’s reputation ridiculous:

Ibid.

“They might make Miss America or become Hollywood stars and writeups would refer to them as

Princeton graduates.” Other alumni, though perhaps not as archaic in the domesticity of their beliefs

as Mr. Irwin, worried that women would degrade Princeton’s prestige with feminine softness. One

doubted that women would want to write the senior thesis, fearing that this would “hurt the thesis

concept.”

Displaying a markedly different stance from the Patterson committee, another letter

questions “what makes us think we are really qualified to teach women?”

believing that women

require a separate type of educational nurturing than men, as opposed to acknowledging that both

men and women could thrive under the same rigorous tutelage.

Though Alumni stuck in their antiquated worldviews were unsurprisingly perturbed by

Patterson’s construal of men and women as capable equals, the general Princeton community’s

response was much more positive. Even among alumni, not all were initially opposed to the

recommendations delivered by the Patterson report, and dissent appeared to decrease over time. Up

until mid-October, the month following the report’s initial publication in Alumni Weekly, it was

reported that 65% of alumni letters being received on the topic of coeducation were expressing

views against the policy. After October 15th, however, a subsequent update from the presidential

assistant in charge of gauging alumni opinions, Jeremiah A. Farrington, reported that dissent had

deteriorated somewhat with 58% of alumni letters “against.”

Of course, it was difficult to estimate

the breakdown in opinion of all alumni based on such letters, and the Secretary of the Board of

Trustees shared that strong supporters and opponents appeared to be in roughly equal measure,

based on “alumni meetings around the nation.”

The careful tracking of alumni opinions were likely

Herbert W. Hobler, “’The Education of Women at Princeton’: Should Princeton Decide Now?,” Princeton, NJ, December 1968,

Arthur J Horton Collection on Coeducation, Box 8, Folder 2.

Warren P. Elmer Jr. to Harold H. Helm, September 30, 1968, Arthur J. Horton Collection on Coeducation, Box 8, Folder 2.

Of course, it is important to acknowledge that this understanding assumes that the Professors themselves will treat men and women

equally and respectfully and does not include the unfortunate cases in which Professors accustomed to teaching all men treated female

students in unsavory manners so as to make women uncomfortable and mar their learning environment.

Stan Pieringer, “Old Tigers Speak: Alumni-Opinion in Meetings and mail continues to run against coeducation,” Daily Princetonian,

(Princeton, NJ), November 20, 1968.

Ibid.

rooted in financial concern, but Farrington commented at the time that letters threatening to cut off

their financial support were “balanced by those promising support.”

Again, the alumni’s financial

relationship to the university was relevant to the policy decision-making process, but only insofar as

ascertaining that Princeton would not be financially harmed on net.

The Trustee Board Rules to Admit Women: Testament to a Skillfully-Crafted Report

In January 1969, the Board of Trustees voted to adopt the Patterson report

recommendations by a vote of 24 to 8, signaling that the official planning for admitting women

could begin.

As the University’s core governing body, the trustees hold primary control over

Princeton’s policy decisions. The board’s responsibilities and areas of control are far-reaching, and it

is stated that “it is assumed that major changes in policy and any substantial new claims on funds

will be brought to the Trustees for review and approval before final decisions or commitments are

made.”

Though the trustees have an officially-stated intent to “delegate broad authority to the

President,”

it should be noted that Princeton’s President serves on the board as an ex officio

member with vote during his or her term. This Charter states that a key component of the Trustees’

duty is “the promotion, advancement, evaluation and dissemination of learning by instruction.”

1968 Princetonian article on the trustees’ role summarizes the former duty as: “[insuring] to every

student an education of the highest quality.”

Chairman of the Board’s executive committee at the

time confirmed this interpretation via interview, affirming that “. . . our aim is education.” As

Ibid.

Malkiel, “Keep the Damned Women Out “,175.

Rules & Procedures of the Faculty of Princeton University and Other Provisions of Concern to the Faculty, Office of the Dean of the Faculty,

Princeton University, (April 2022).

https://dof.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf3496/files/documents/Rules%20and%20Procedures%20of%20the%20Faculty%20of

%20Princeton%20University%202021.jbg_.4.20.pdf

Ibid.

Prineton University Office of the Dean of the Faculty, “A. The Board of the Trustees.” https://dof.princeton.edu/rules-and-

procedures-librarians-princeton-university/governance-university/board-trustees

William H. Paul, “The Trustees: Men at the Top of the Power Structure,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 8, 1968.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19680208-01.2.7&srpos=5&e=------196-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation----1968--

Malkiel, “Keep the Damned Women Out”, 115.

Princeton is inherently an institution of education, this commitment to advancing education could

also be construed as a furthering of Princeton the institution, including its reputation, competitive

advantages, and place as a leading university.

Patterson’s persuasive educational rationale had a distinct hand in his proposal’s passage.

Prior to the trustees’ vote, Harold H. Helm gave a presentation on the report as chair of the

committee created by Goheen to study and inspect the report carefully.

Although initially not in

favor of coeducation himself, he ultimately asked that the board regard “the desirability of the

education of women at Princeton” as “essentially an education question”

in Princeton’s best

interest as an institution hoping to remain “a leader.”

He appealed to the Trustees’ sense of duty to

uphold Princeton’s status, and the voters acquiesced. Helm’s altered stance on coeducation was also

a testament to the persuasive power of Patterson’s report; by offering a rigorous, intellectual analysis

of the merits of coeducation, it had a strong basis for swaying individuals initially opposed to

coeducation for sentimental or emotional reasons.

A few months after the trustees’ preliminary vote, Goheen publicly announced that

Princeton would admit women the coming fall, though in small numbers, as necessitated by the

narrow time frame. His April 1969 press statement described Princeton’s plan to admit women for

the coming fall, stating “About 130 women are expected to be admitted to Princeton next year,

approximately 90 as freshmen and 40 as transfer students.”

Concerning the very small number of

women, he explained Princeton’s intention to “start modestly and to increase numbers gradually as

we gain experience and as financing becomes available” with the ultimate goal of having 650 female

students by 1973. This policy choice diverged from Patterson’s recommendations, which suggested

Ibid.

Department of Public Information, Princeton University, 2:00 P.M., Saturday, February 22, 1969. Arthur J Horton Collection on

Coeducation, Box 2, Folder 2

admitting no fewer than 1,000 women. Though it would have been possible to attain more equitable

proportions of men and women without a demanding increase in student body size, doing so was

off the table, as per Goheen’s aforementioned stipulation that quantities of men not decrease

(presumably, as a conciliatory measure for alumni). Goheen emphasized the intention to build

numbers over time, intending to eventually heed the report’s wisdom. Yet, the Board chose the

route of admitting women as soon as possible at the cost of being able to (at least initially) cultivate a

student body with the most advantageous proportion of women. In his report, Patterson weighed

the option of admitting fewer women, concluding:

Whereas small numbers might permit Princeton to reply “not guilty” to the charge of

discrimination on the basis of sex, the University would still have to answer to the

charge that integration was token only, and that Princeton had settled for mini-

solutions, showing an unbecoming lack of courage, confidence, and verve. The only

answer to these charges might be that financial considerations ruled out any other

immediate solution, but that the University was firmly committed to a policy of

admitting a substantial number of women when the resources could be found.

Goheen, likely aided by Patterson’s advice, immediately took steps to avoid criticism, defending his

choice as financially warranted and promising to admit more women “when the resources could be

found.”

Once Princeton had decided that pursuing education was the “correct” move, it was eager

to admit women as quickly as possible, outpacing Yale.

The Board’s choice reveals its tendency to view their role of furthering education as

encompassing the furthering of Princeton’s leading educational status. As discussed by Patterson,

the true educational benefits of coeducation, such as diversified classroom discussion, would not

typically be reaped with such a small proportion of women. Thus, the initial years of admitting

women would not yield these purely education-based benefits for Princeton students but would

certainly appear progressive and prevent “Yale from upstaging [Princeton] with its move to

Ibid.

coeducation.”

The more general policy decision to admit women likely drew on the logic offered

by Patterson regarding coeducation’s educational merits for male as well as female students.

Final Discussion of Drivers and Policy Implications for Women

In the offset quote from the Patterson report included above, Patterson alludes to the legal

circumstances to come. Title IX had not yet been passed when Princeton welcomed its first class of

women.

As a private institution, Princeton would not be legally beholden to Title IX’s admissions

policies. However, the existence of Title IX would have likely fostered increased social pressured for

Princeton to become coeducational. In the pre-1973 era in which the decision to become

coeducational took place, issues of equality or women’s rights were not at the forefront of

Princeton’s decision-making process. However, there were allusions to the impending importance of

women’s rights; it is difficult to ascertain whether such considerations were included due to an

inkling of what was to come, legally speaking, or out of a genuine concern for women’s equal access

to education. In addition to the aforementioned quote referencing Princeton’s innocence from “the

charge of discrimination based on sex,” the report’s conclusion notes as an aside, “There is also a

more general question: Can this University, being a national institution, continue to justify denying

educational opportunities to any person because of race, creed, or sex? We think not.” Based on his

categorization of Princeton as a “national” institution, Patterson’s conclusion seems to stem from an

awareness of the country’s movement towards more equitable social values, not a belief that

Princeton should burden itself with effecting egalitarian change; Patterson’s report blatantly stated

his intention to ascertain whether Princeton needed women (and not vice versa). A deep concern

for furthering women’s opportunities would also be incongruent with Goheen’s philosophy that a

university was not meant to be an “instrument of social change.”

Goheen, “Overcoming the Obstacles on the Road to Coeducation.”

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.

Goheen, The Human Nature of a University.

However, some members of the Princeton community did regard the issue of coeducation

with an eye toward principles of social justice and equality. The article describing the faculty survey

of coeducation opinions highlighted that some faculty members endorsed coeducation on the

grounds that failing to offer admittance to women was a civil rights violation, with one individual

quoted as saying, “It is unthinkable that in our day, sex can stand in the way of somebody's

education. A fine educational institution should make its facilities available to all, regardless of sex or

race."

Yet, aside from the brief comments made in the Patterson report, the concept of providing

women admission as a means for furthering equity of the sexes was scarcely mentioned. Implicit in

Princeton’s ultimate decision was the acknowledgement that women were capable of academic rigor

and intellectual discussion and that Princeton would be a better educational environment for their

presence; Princeton aimed to increase its educational quality and institutional status, not be a

trailblazer of social change.

Did Princeton have “the needs and concerns of women in mind?” when they decided to

admit women? This question’s wording neglects to distinguish between women as a social category

and the particular women who would be attending Princeton, were Princeton to admit women.

Those charged with weighing potential costs and benefits did consider the needs of women specific

to Princeton, asking which changes and accommodations Princeton would require to do justice to

women students. Yet, a concern for women as a group deserving of access to Princeton’s excellent

education did not appear to be a driver. Addressing the second portion of Malkiel’s question of

whether coeducation was “primarily a strategic move, a way of retaining competitive advantage by

strengthening the quality and educational experience of male students” also requires a level of

Robert L. Herbst, “Coed Survey Returns Indicate Overwhelming Faculty Support,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 26,

1967. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670426-01.2.10&srpos=2&e=------196-en-20--

1-byDA-txt-txIN-survey+returns+indicate------

nuance. Though retaining a competitive edge certainly played a role in the President’s and Trustees’

consideration, there also appeared to be a genuine interest in maintaining the educational quality of

Princeton for education’s sake. Its competitively strategic and quality-motivated concerns both

furthered Princeton’s status as an impressive, leading educational institution. Though admitting

women may have improved Princeton, the University failed to provide early female students with an

experience equal to that of their male peers. The next chapter will explore one woman’s fight for

egalitarian social policy change on Princeton’s campus.

CHAPTER 2

DINING AS EQUALS: A LEGALLY-WON RIGHT

In some sense there was equality between male and female students, but the culture of the University

was dominated by the clubs, which were operating in much the same way long before coeducation, and

which had assumed that women were mere decorative objects. My understanding is that remarkably

little about life in the clubs has changed with coeducation. Since the University has, I think, spent

little time thinking about gender, no one has really addressed the problem raised by this

contradiction. -Susan Amussen ‘76

Introduction

Following women’s admittance to Princeton, the undergraduate social climate continued to

reflect the misogynistic masculinity which had so long dominated Princeton. The Princeton Eating

Clubs, central to upperclassman life, contributed problematically to female students’ failure to

receive a truly equal educational experience to that of men. Though a few clubs were open to

women as early as 1969, others failed to admit women until legally forced to do so in the early 1990s.

Student Sally Frank, who experienced firsthand Princeton’s the cultural toxicity and inequitable

social environment, began taking activist actions against the remaining all-male eating clubs in 1978.

Due to the complicated relationship between Princeton and its Eating Clubs, the University

technically lacked authority to force its clubs to admit women. Though Princeton attempted to

officially contract with the clubs in 1978, releasing a proposal which indicated a University

preference for non-selective, coeducational clubs, the eating clubs failed to accept Princeton’s

proposal. Even in this proposal, the University’s rhetoric was painstakingly diplomatic, refraining

from outwardly critiquing the policies of male-only club or taking a stance on their merits. It was not

until after legal activism against the all-male clubs tainted their (and by association, Princeton’s)

image unavoidably that Princeton publicly spoke out against its clubs, displaying its careful, risk-

approach to status-maintenance.

Thus, in this chapter, the policy change principally considered is not within Princeton’s

jurisdiction. However, Princeton’s shift from failing to condemn the single-sex clubs, instead

proclaiming separation from them, to outwardly proclaiming a “long held” desire that the clubs

admit women reflects Princeton’s tendency to publicly operate with an ultimate goal of image-

maintenance. Just as Princeton chose to drop sex-based admissions quotas only with a potential legal

threat on the horizon, Princeton spoke out against its clubs only when the clubs’ public failure was

certain. And the perceived damage to Princeton’s image was unavoidable

The chapter will first explore the ways in which sexism and discrimination manifest on the

Princeton campus in the decades following coeducation, devoting particular attention to how the

Eating Clubs aided and abetted discrimination. To do so, I will rely on myriad first-person, primary

source accounts of female Princeton alumnae. I will then explore University policy actions taken (or

attempted) during these years with implications for Princeton’s social atmosphere, including their

late 1970s attempt to gain acquisition of the eating clubs. These policy actions will help construct

understanding of the degree to which Princeton prioritized ameliorating sexist components of its

campus’s social atmosphere, in turn facilitating a clearer interpretation of Princeton’s often tight-

lipped, savvy public responses to the Sally Frank case. Last, and as the core focus of this chapter, I

will delineate the legal process in which one female student served as a major harbinger of policy

change within Princeton’s social scene via her fight for the eating clubs to admit women. Through

examining Princeton’s public responses and monitoring of the legal situation, I will argue that

Princeton, though certainly not callous toward legitimate social concerns, was predominately

concerned throughout the policymaking process with monitoring the public narrative, shifting from

initially denying all responsibility and connection to the clubs to, eventually, openly proclaiming its

(genuine, yet previously subdued) desire that the Princeton Eating Clubs admit women.

Ants Under a Magnifying Glass: Women of Post-1969 Princeton

Though the presence of women on Princeton’s campus necessarily changed the social and

academic atmosphere beginning in the fall of 1969, many aspects of a male-dominated campus

endured; one of the most concrete vestiges of Princeton as an all-male institution remained until

1991, when the final Princeton Eating Club became coeducational. When women first entered

Princeton undergraduate life, the male-dominated atmosphere endured as an undisputable reality

given the extremely small quantities of women admitted. One alumna from the very first class of

women, Gail Finney, shared how the excitement of being unable to “go in or out without

encountering a journalist” deteriorated quickly: “. . . our celebrity status soon paled in the face of the

hard reality of a 19 to 1 male-female ratio. I was the only woman in every class I took my first

semester, and many was the uneasy breakfast at which I was the sole female in Commons.”

described by Finney, life as one of the first female Princetonians was, at best, lonely.

At worst,

however, women experienced truly ugly instances of discrimination, both academically and socially.

While Patterson’s report anticipated certain downsides to the admittance of too few women,

he failed to identify the way in which a small proportion of women could negatively impact their

social treatment by men. Patterson raised academic concerns, such as the expectation that being one

of only “one or two girls in a class”

would inhibit women’s participation. On the social front, he

posited that an overbearing male-to-female ratio could result in women that were too popular, and

Kirsten Bibbins, Anne Chiang, and Heather Stephenson, Women Reflect About Princeton, (Princeton: The Office of

Communications/Publications, 1989).

Gail Finney’s comments are taken from Women Reflect About Princeton, a book that began as a project conducted by in 1987 by three

female undergraduates. The authors wrote to Princeton alumnae and enquired into their Princeton experiences. The responses,

ultimately turned into a book, offer a poignant glimpse into the social and educational experiences of by female students during the

early coeducational years.

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report,” Princeton Alumni Weekly 69, (September 24, 1968).

that having too few women would skew their male counterpart’s perceptions of women as a group,

explaining: “. . . men form their opinions of women as fellow students and fellow human beings on

the basis of those whom they see and work with. When the sample is too small, the results tend to

be erratic.”

This point holds concern for the way in which men conceive of women, but the report

largely discussion of the way in which Princeton men might treat women. Specifically, the report fails

to identify the potential causal arrow between too few women and facilitation of discrimination

against said women, in both academic and social settings.

Despite the potential issues with admitting a small quantity of women (both those stressed

here and those foreseen by the Patterson Report), Princeton initially admitted only 171 women,

primarily out of a cautious means to avoid overwhelming alumni dissent. The small number of

women was necessitated by Princeton’s commitment to maintaining the same quantity of men

coupled with the practical impossibility of increasing the student body substantially in such a short

period of time.

As discussed at length in Chapter 1, Princeton was determined to admit women in a

timely fashion, overtaking Yale’s efforts to do the same. (Princeton would remove these quotas in

1974, a policy decision discussed in a later section of the present chapter.)

Princeton’s initial decision to introduce so few women exacerbated the discrimination

already likely to spring from a historically male University. One instance in which a woman was

singled out for discrimination was described in a Princetonian article reflecting on the first 25 years of

coeducation. In the article, Laurie Watson, a member of the first class of Princeton women, recalls

being late to astronomy class during the fall of her freshman year. The professor then called her to

come take a look through the telescope. However, his request turned out to be a ploy designed to

Ibid., 21.

“Coeducation: History of Women at Princeton University,” Princeton University Library.

https://libguides.princeton.edu/c.php?g=84581&p=543232

Bressler, M. Report of the Committee on the Future of the College, (Princeton: Princeton University Press., 1973).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x1cc1

humiliate Watson: “Laughter began first to seep and then to erupt from the all-male crowd before

her. . . When she had finally focused the image, she discovered that the telescope was pointed to a

pin-up poster of a nude female tacked to the back wall.”

Though Watson could have experienced

discrimination without being the sole woman in her class, her singularity made her conspicuous,

facilitating the discriminatory “ganging up” category of behavior committed by her male professor

and peers. Another glaring instance of discrimination in the academic realm, Susan P. Chizeck

recounted being written an “awful recommendation” by a professor who would later express

happiness at her having been rejected by the graduate school. Chizeck further depicted her negative

academic experience, recalling being loathe to speak up as (frequently) the only woman in the class,

fearful of the professor’s treatment.

Again, though the Professor may have been misogynistic

regardless of the quantity of women in his class, those professors inclined to make “cutting” or

“nasty” comments to women likely felt more comfortable doing so in a classroom of men.

Ellen Porter Honnet, also a member of Princeton’s first class of women, created a list

describing life at Princeton, with two characterizations being “Life under a magnifying glass” and “A

few direct hits amidst subtle discrimination.”

The descriptions of Honnet and accounts given by

her female peers are reminiscent of ants frying under a microscope– excessively observed, burned by

beams of masculine discrimination which were highly concentrated on the sparse population of

women. Granted, many women were quick to acknowledge silver linings in their experience; Honnet

appreciates the existence of “superb professors,” “friends,” and plentiful opportunities. Yet, the

sexism women faced clearly detracted from the quality of Princeton experience they could

attain/prevented them from attaining an equivalent quality of experience to that of men.

Carlo H. Balestri, “25 Years of Coeducation Breaking Down Barriers: The First 4 Years.” See also Malkiel, 221.

Bibbins et al., 22.

Bibbins et al., 16.

Though Princeton put a great deal of time and energy into the physical, logistical planning

for women’s arrival to campus,

instances recounted by alumnae show that preparations still fell

short. Upon Maureen King ‘77’s arrival to campus, she recalled her women’s dormitory restrooms

featuring “spring-loaded” toilet seats “so that they would automatically pop up–unless you held

them down as you sat down.”

Though not a social memory, this University oversight emphasizes

the deeply-engrained and longstanding nature of Princeton’s masculine culture. In other letters

received by alumnae, women recall being met with unfounded biases

Title IX was passed

and Princeton (independently) chose to drop quotas within just a few

years of Princeton becoming coeducational, yet academic and social discrimination against women

persisted long after these early years. Lisa C. Jeffry ‘86 (a student more than a decade after the

admittance of women) recalls being told by a junior physics major that “one of the hormones that

turned on at puberty was supposed to restrict the development of visual spatial skills,” linking earlier

biological development of women to a lower proportion of women in mathematical fields. Upon

learning that Jeffry intended to major in physics, he felt comfortable asking her if she had “matured

late.”

Also in 1986, a forum on “Sexual Harassment at Princeton,” explored overt harassment as

well as subtle–yet insidious–manifestations of sexism in the classroom setting. According to

Princetonian reporter Julie Marvin, students at the forum expressed the ways in which “professors and

preceptors, who are generally male, can manifest a subtler kind of sexism through embarrassing

sexual jokes, exclusive use of male examples in lecture and selective attention to male students.”

Pyne Hall Alterations, Office of Physical Planning Records, April-September 1969, Box 41, Folder 12.

“Women Reflect About Princeton,” Alumni Weekly, (Princeton, NJ) 1989.

For Title IX legislation see: Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688. Note: Though exempt from Title

IX’s admissions stipulations as a private university, Princeton was beholden to all other aspects of the legislation. Specifically,

Princeton was forbidden to discriminate on the basis of sex in educational programs or activates and was mandated to establish

personnel and procedures for addressing sex-based discriminatory grievances. It was also required to evaluate its current practices in

light of Title IX.)

“Women Reflect About Princeton.”

Julie Marvin, “Students Blame Campus Social Life for Promoting Sexual Harassment,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October

10, 1986. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19861010-01.2.6&srpos=3&e=------198-en-

20--1--txt-txIN-classroom+sexism------

Various anecdotes from the forum (to be described in more detail later) describe incidents which

occurred at the Eating Clubs, longstanding institutions of masculinity and core perpetrators of

discrimination against Princeton’s female students.

Long Histories of Masculinity: The Princeton Eating Clubs

Following coeducation, sex-based discrimination occurred in both the blatant refusal of

certain Eating Clubs to admit women and the uncomfortable, sexist social atmospheres fostered by

the clubs and their parties. The Eating Clubs’ unwelcoming, traditional masculinity is hardly

surprising given their extremely long association with the all-male Princeton University.

The formation of Princeton’s first Eating Club, Ivy Club, established the intertwined nature

of the University, its masculine culture, and the Eating Clubs, through both the sheer age of the

Clubs and the official “contract” established between the University and Ivy Club. The eating-based

group which would become Ivy Club was born in 1877 after a group of undergraduates sought an

eating opportunity separate from the College of New Jersey, procuring a space for sharing meals.

Ivy Club, once dubbed as such, became Princeton’s oldest club with the longest traditions; fittingly,

Ivy would be one of the two Eating Clubs to refuse women membership until legally mandated into

coeducation After making arrangements for an official Clubhouse, the Ivy Club submitted their

“Constitution and By-Laws. . . for approval to the College authorities. ”

The College’s President at

the time gave his official approval, signifying “a contract between the Club and the College” with

“mutual obligations.” In other words, the founding of Princeton’s first eating club was cemented by

its entering into an official agreement with Princeton–at the time, the College of New Jersey–

indicating an undeniable link between the two. This point is relevant to the eating clubs’ eventual

Steven Bernstein, “Ivy Celebrates 100th Anniversary as First Eating Club on the ‘Street,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), 8

February 1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790208-01.2.6&srpos=8&e=-------en-

20--1--txt-txIN-history+of+eating+clubs------

Clifford W. Zink, The Princeton Eating Clubs, (Princeton: Princeton Prospect Foundation, 2017), 14.

coeducational status; defining the nature of the clubs’ relationship to the University played a central

role in the legal proceedings carried out to secure women’s admittance into the eating clubs.

Historically, the University viewed the student creation of eating clubs as a positive

phenomenon. After Ivy’s creation, other clubs began to proliferate. Clifford W. Zink’s The Princeton

Eating Clubs includes an excerpt from a 1957 undergraduate thesis in which the student says of the

clubs: “These clubs were sanctioned and even encouraged by the college authorities. . . The clubs

continued to form and expand with the approval of the college.”

At this early period in the clubs’

history, there had yet to arise any controversy. Thus, the University had no visible motive to publicly

downplay its relationship with the clubs out of concern for Princeton’s reputation.

By the beginning of the 20

century, the clubs’ member selection process had become more

competitive, a development viewed negatively by Princeton’s president at the time.. The multi-day

selection process, bearing some similarity to Greek Life “rush,” was (and continues to be) known as

“bicker.” The “non-selective” clubs were those which opted to refrain from bicker, instead allowing

students to simply join. In 1906, Princeton President Woodrow Wilson noted the competitive, elitist

atmosphere fostered by the growing club system, claiming that Princeton’s club-based social life

“threaten a kind of disintegration.” Wilson advocated for a “quad plan” in lieu of what he saw as the

“discriminatory” club system.

He desired that undergraduates of all years would live and interact

with each other, learning from one another. Due in part to strong opposition from the clubs

themselves and their alumni, Wilson’s vision to “absorb” the clubs into the University never came to

fruition. Yet, his stance against the eating clubs represents the first outward critique of the social

system by Princeton’s leadership. The next administrative call to change the club system would not

Ibid., 23.

Melanie Jeralds, “Maynard ‘88: Wilson 1879 Battled to Get Rid of Clubs,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 12, 2008.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian20081112-01.2.3&srpos=5&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

history+of+eating+clubs------

occur until after the advent of women on campus. It will be considered to what degree this later

effort shared Wilson’s goal of eradicating the (sex-based) discrimination fostered by the clubs.

Wilson’s reform hopes having amounted to nothing, the Princeton eating clubs remained a

relatively unchanging, stable aspect of campus life until women arrived in the fall of 1969. Though

some clubs folded or merged with other clubs, the fundamental characteristics of Princeton’s

underclassmen dining and social structures were unshakably student run, selective, and clique-based.

Sexist Clubs: The Eating Clubs Respond to a Coeducational Campus

The eating clubs’ varying responses to women’s arrival at Princeton were indicative of the

divided attitudes (and varied levels of progressivism) present within the student body. While some

clubs quickly opened their membership to women, citing values of equity, other clubs viewed

admitting women as entirely out of the question. After the first class of women entered Princeton in

1969, three clubs were technically available to them, though few female undergraduates pursued

membership in a Princeton Eating club. Campus Club began a policy of admitting women in 1964

with the admittance of a Critical Languages student. Charter and Cloister were also open to women.

A Princetonian article from December of 1970 reported that Cloister and Dial had also voted to admit

women, commonly referred to as “coeds.”

Just a few days later, another article reported that Cap

and Gown, Quadrangle, and Tower had also voted to admit women during the upcoming bicker

season.

In only the second year of Princeton admitting female undergraduates, all but four of its

eating clubs elected to admit women, a somewhat surprising statistic when considering that the final

male-only eating clubs would not be eliminated for more than two decades. One might expect that

major legal developments promoting women’s civil rights, such as Title IX’s passage, might

Al Campi, “Five Clubs to Accept Women,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 4

1970.https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19701204-01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--

txt-txIN-eating+club+critical+language+------

Al Campi, “Cap, Quad, Tower Vote to Allow Coeds in Bicker,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 11,

1970.https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19701211-01.2.2&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--1--

txt-txIN-tower+admit+women------

indirectly influence clubs’ decisions to forego discrimination against women. Yet, most clubs

switched to admitting women either before or well after its passage. What factors prompted the

initial, voluntary wave of decisions to allow Princeton women into clubs alongside their male peers?

Even within the clubs who, as reported by the Princetonian, referenced egalitarian motives for

admitting women, there was likely a less admirable objectification-based motive at play. According

to the Daily Princetonian, various club presidents expressed a lack of justification for barring women

based on their sex. The University’s general decision to admit women alongside a national (legal?)

trend toward upholding more progressive ideals may have helped set a precedent for some

Princeton students. It is also possible that clubs who decided to admit women tokenized them,

desiring their admittance for selfish reasons rather than out of moral principles.

When interviewed, the Tower treasurer’s use of legal jargon indicated an attentiveness

toward the nation’s legal landscape, in which discrimination “on the basis of sex” was increasingly

being outlawed; in 1970, he told the Princetonian that the club overwhelmingly voted in favor of

accepting women because "There was no valid reason to vary admission on the basis of sex."

Similarly, the president of Dial Lodge, a non-bicker club, referenced the club’s “open book” policy,

deeming it inconsistent with said policy to bar women as a group.

In one noticeable departure from an equality-based line of reasoning, however, the head of

Quadrangle expressed a motive of remaining “attractive.”

Considering women constituted a very

small proportion of the undergraduate student body in 1970, the unspoken clause at the end of this

statement was “to men.”

100

This rationale for admitting women echoes earlier considerations of how

admitting women would foster Princeton’s attraction of quality men. Quadrangle’s frank admittance

throws the admirably progressive rationales of other clubs into question.

Ibid.

Even clubs which claimed egalitarian intentions perpetrated sexist conceptions of women,

displayed by the existence of a phenomenon known as the “body bid.” In early years, the concept

of a “body bid” was commonly referenced by Princeton students. A 1973 Princetonian article

describes how “some men and women shouted, ‘body bid’ to help ‘railroad through’ ‘attractive’

bickerees of the opposite sex.”

101

Although the article writer frames this behavior as “going both

ways,” so to speak, it seems likely that men were the primary participants in such behavior, especially

given the greater proportion of men than women both on campus and in coed clubs. A Princetonian

article from the following year affirms this phenomenon’s status as male-dominated, describing the

“body bid” as a “quick and efficient method of cutting through discussion” which “allows the male

majority of club members to admit females blessed with certain assets.”

102

Though some members

may have sought to admit women as intellectual companions and social equals, many male

Princetonians primarily valued women for their physical appeal (a phenomenon which Patterson

anticipated in his report in admitting women).

Though a 1983 Princeton student-penned “Dictionary” included the term “body bid,”

103

indicated the endurance of Princeton club members’ tendency to admit women based on physical

appearance, various women at this time either denied the presence of discrimination in bicker.

This somewhat surprising phenomena resulted from the decreased overtness in sexism coupled with

a desire by some women not to overlook discrimination surrounding them. A selection of interviews

conducted with female “bickerees” in 1977 disputed the existence of sexist bicker tactics. One

woman commented, “I don’t feel like I’m participating in a beauty contest,” while another woman

101

Andy Pollack, “Bicker Bids Due Today.” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 9, 1973.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19730209-01.2.4&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-body+bid------

102

Mike Molyneux, “Clubs Provide Campus with Traditional Social Life,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), July 25, 1974.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740725-01.2.91&srpos=6&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-cannon+admit+women------

103

“Dictionary,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), July 25, 1983.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19830725-01.2.25&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Dictionary+body+bid----1983--

said, “I haven’t felt that at all,” when asked about the “practice of giving a woman a favorable rating

based on her physical attractiveness.”

104

Of note, most women interviewed by author Brian

Dickerson were those participating in the bicker process in hopes of gaining membership, not

members privy to the actual discussion process. Women vying for membership would have lacked

awareness of how their appearance might have contributed to offers of membership (or lack

thereof). Additionally, though some women may have had genuinely benign experiences with bicker,

other students’ were still firmly attesting to the presence of overt sexual harassment in the clubs nine

years later (at the previously-mentioned 1986 forum on harassment). One attendee commented, “A

big issue is at clubs and colleges, when women get pinned up against the wall, and guys attribute it to

male hormones and drunkenness,"

105

describing an apparently commonplace example of physical

coercion. Corroborating this depiction of the clubs, a male student attending the forum claimed

“"When you're surrounded by guys, this place gets pretty sick."

106

Despite the undeniable sexism and discrimination stemming Princeton’s social scene, few

women partook in activism against the clubs. In the same 1977 collection of interviews, it was noted

that women “defended the rights of several women who bickered at the three all-male clubs before

being cut” yet they “refused to condemn the clubs' policies.” One woman labeled fighting for the

all-male clubs to admit women as “futile.” With a similarly resigned attitude, another woman

expressed appreciation that the all-male clubs “at least let women in the door”

107

(for parties,

presumably). As of 1977, a select few women sought to protest the remaining single-sex clubs, but

many had accepted the current social circumstances as an immovable status quo.

104

Brian Dickerson, “It’s a Big Step up from Sorority Rush: Bickering Women Have Few Gripes,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

February 3, 1977. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19770203-01.2.5&srpos=5&e=------

197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-tower+admit+women------

105

Julie Marvin, “Students Blame Campus Social Life for Promoting Sexual Harassment.”

106

Ibid.

107

Ibid.

During the era which Sally Frank commenced her activism against the eating clubs, refusing

to echo the defeatist attitudes of her peers, some women preferred to dismiss the hard reality of

discrimination rather than support Frank’s endeavors. One letter contained in Bibbins et al. from

Vickie L. Wallen ’83 helps reconcile the discrepancy between the existence of discriminatory

structures and environments on campus with female students’ apathetic attitudes and denial of such

discrimination. Vickie L. Wallen ’83 wrote: “I wonder if many joined me in quietly ridiculing and

parodying Frank (or more precisely, her activist image), thereby more easily allowing ourselves to

dismiss her and the issues she addressed”

108

–according to Wallen, women may have preferred to

assume that activists were overly dramatic than to contend honestly with the upsetting reality of

discrimination. Wallen, writing from 1986, continued, “Now. . . We ask whether we should defend

and perpetrate a tradition that engender and promotes the value of (mostly white) male exclusivity.”

At that time Frank’s battle was well underway but not yet won. Before considering Frank’s fight for

women’s equal social treatment on Princeton’s campus, I will consider University policy actions

taken in the sexism-rife decade following women’s admittance to campus.

Princeton Attempts to “Overcome” Male Image via Equal Access Policy

Thus far, the present chapter has discussed Princeton’s domineeringly masculine

environment and the discrimination inherent in the average Princetonian woman’s experience during

the first decade of coeducation. The continued existence of all-male eating clubs constituted one

particularly conspicuous perpetrator of a discriminatory campus which would only be eradicated

through a decades-long, student-initiated legal fight. Prior to the commencement of Sally Frank’s

legal activism, what steps did the University itself take to ameliorate discriminatory aspects of

Princeton’s atmosphere? An examination of the progressive changes made (or attempted) during

108

Bibbins et al., 64-65.

this period will aid my later interpretation of the University’s often tight-lipped response to the

Eating Clubs legal saga.

Princeton’s decision to drop sex-based quotas was its most outwardly egalitarian, anti-

discriminatory policy change implemented prior to Sally Frank’s first legal complaint against the

clubs. As previously noted, Princeton initially decided to admit a small quantity of women to

maintain a constant quantity of men. In 1971, however, President Goheen requested an extensive

report intended to provide “a major review of undergraduate education at Princeton.”

109

This report,

released in 1974, contained a major chapter entitled, “The Size of the College, Coeducation and the

Composition of the Student Body.”

110

Despite Princeton’s having instituted quotas only five years

prior with the advent of coeducation, this section recommended that quotas be dropped, broadly

citing the principled correctness of an anti-discriminatory policy, the prudence from a legal

standpoint, and the way in which dropping quotas would allow Princeton to shed its “long-standing

image as an exclusively or dominantly male institution.”

111

The report openly acknowledged the ill

social effects endured by women in the first three years of coeducation (when the male-to-female

ratio was overbearingly disproportionate), noting that the slim numbers of women made those years

“a particularly difficult experience for those few.”

112

Yet, none of the reasons presented in favor of

eliminating quotas–a policy which would facilitate more equivalent ratios of men to women–point to

the way in which the policy would improve social life for women and/or decrease Princeton’s

discriminatory atmosphere. Instead, Princeton’s pursual of a policy likely to incidentally improve

Princeton’s social atmosphere was driven by separate rationale.

109

Bressler, Report of the Committee on the Future of the College.

110

Ibid., 71.

111

Ibid., 84.

112

Ibid., 77.

Though Princeton only overtly labels one of its three driving rationales as image-based, all

bear some consideration of Princeton’s image. First, though the report blatantly states, “We believe

that applicants for admission should not suffer discrimination on the basis of their sex,” the very

next sentence is as follows: “We take this to be a principle of justice and equality of opportunity, and

one which is gaining favor with an increasing segment of the population”

113

[emphasis added]. The report

devotes substantial words to discussing the population’s shift towards favoring more equitable

policies, eventually describing it as “deep-seated and irreversible.”

114

The report makes plain that

Princeton concurs with the public’s disapproval of policies that could be construed as

“discriminatory in any pejorative sense of the term.”

115

Broadly though, its rhetoric conveys that

Princeton’s decision to drop quotas for equality’s sake seemed driven by the growing popularity of

egalitarian policies to at least the same degree that it was driven by Princeton’s own anti

discriminatory stance.

This first, principle-based argument overlaps with the tertiary argument presented, which

focuses on how an equal opportunity admissions policy would aid Princeton in shedding its (now

undesirable) male-dominated image. It often requires reading between the lines to approximate the

extent to which a given policy decision was influenced by image concerns. In this case, however, the

report blatantly states an intention to shed its domineeringly masculine image, which is a conception

of Princeton likely to repel some high-quality female candidates.

116117

At this point in history,

Princeton deemed it prudent to appear egalitarian for the sake of adhering to a culturally popular

value and for the sake of attracting male applicants.

113

Ibid., 83.

114

Ibid., 80.

115

Ibid., 80.

116

Ibid., 81.

117

This aspect of the report’s argument parallels one of the arguments made to accept women in the first place, now with regards to

attracting quality female applicants.

Lastly, the report draws upon egalitarian legal developments, extrapolating from national

trends that a policy of quotas would soon prove legally challenging to maintain. Though Title IX did

not apply to Princeton’s admissions policies, Princeton being a private institution,

118

the report cites

Title IX’s passage as indicating a legal trend toward outlawing discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

Similarly, the report references the “Green amendment” which “would have provided for the

withdrawal of all federal funds from any private institution that practiced discrimination by sex in

the admission of students.”

119

Taken together, the committee reasons that the changing legal landscapes would likely make

it impossible for “a policy of discrimination by sex” to “survive.”

120

The committee’s raising of legal

considerations exemplifies the careful forethought put into many of Princeton’s policy decisions. In

this case, aside from the other considerations of appearing egalitarian and equality, the legal

atmosphere served to make dropping quotas the prudent, proactive route. Here too, lay an

implication for image, as Princeton could drop quotas on its own terms, appearing much more

proactively egalitarian than had a legal development targeted Princeton’s admissions policy.

Indeed, it was evident that Princeton saw its autonomous decision to institute an equal

access policy as a point of pride. In 1976, three years after Title IX’s passage Princeton University

issued a federally-required “Title IX Evaluation: Report and Recommendations”

121

examining the

university’s policies and practices in light of Title IX. The report specifically notes that

“Undergraduate admissions at Princeton are not subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of

Title IX.”

122

However, the Report’s discussion of Princeton’s recent adoption of an equal access

admissions policy showcase Princeton’s initiative to act in accordance with spirit of Title IX. In the

118

U.S. Department of Education, “Exemptions from Title IX.” https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-

exempt/index.html

119

Bressler, Report of the Committee on the Future of the College, 81.

120

Ibid.

121

“Title IX Evaluation: Report and Recommendations,” Princeton University, (November 17, 1976.)

122

Ibid., 9.

section discussing appearances, Princeton again emphasizes its decision to go above and beyond,

displaying a wholehearted commitment to promoting equality even when not required by law to do

so, asserting: “The University is under the moral imperative to be assured that its procedures are in

fact operating without discriminating against either sex, even inadvertently.”

123

Significantly, Princeton’s decision to drop quotas was a fundamentally socially beneficial

decision. However, the report’s language makes it clear that the committee prioritized shedding

Princeton’s image as domineeringly masculine and discriminatory over and above its desire to actually

make Princeton not so. For example, the report shares that altering Princeton’s masculine image (via

an equal access policy) would help “persuade potential applicants that women undergraduates will be

welcome here on an equal footing with men” It is likely true and not simply a persuasive tactic that

this policy would aid the process furthering equality. The rhetoric itself is revealing of Princeton’s

priorities. It does not stress (or even directly acknowledge) the way in which increasing the

proportion of women would actually further equality of women on campus. It is beneficially

incidental that the actions needed to shed this image coincide with actions genuinely likely to

decrease discrimination.

Princeton Takes on its Clubs: An Unsuccessful Policy Intervention for Non-Selectivity

If Princeton wanted to shed completely its overwhelmingly “male” image, altering the

discriminatory nature of the Eating Clubs would constitute a part of this process. Though Sally

Frank’s activism would ultimately be the eliminator of single-sex eating clubs, the University did

propose a policy in 1978 (the same year Frank made her first official complaint) which, if

implemented, would have required coeducational admissions practices from clubs under the policy.

In 1978, Bowen created a Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life (CURL) with the

overarching aim of improving undergraduate life. According to Princetonian articles, undergraduates

123

Ibid., 9

of that era were calling for more social options,

124

possibly prompting this response from Bowen.

Bowen’s stated desire was for the committee “to study and make recommendations concerning the

development of social and dining facilities that would have a direct bearing on the quality of

undergraduate life.”

125

Just as Wilson had raised concerns about the eating clubs’ impact on student

social life in the 19th century, Bowen, in much more neutral terms, indicated the potential for

distinct improvements in that realm of student life. Regarding upperclassmen life, the committee’s

key findings focused on the “fragmentation” arising from the present systems, describing an

undesirably low level of interaction among students. A primary subset of this fragmentation concern

was that it “makes it difficult for members of the community to benefit from the diversity present

on the campus.”

126

The committee’s attempt to identify and pose potential solutions to problems fostered by

the current structure of “social and dining facilities,” was primarily a socially-motivated policy

intervention. The committee sought to ameliorate issues associated with the social atmosphere and,

thus, improve its students’ social experiences. However, the committee did not identify

discrimination (either the discriminatory environment or the discrimination inherent in the presence

of all-male clubs) as one of the social “problems” to be fixed. In CURL’s December diagnostic

interim report, the exclusion of women from clubs is noted only as a barrier to some clubs which

worked to perpetuate social fragmentation. In its attempt to improve Princeton’s upperclassman life

as it pertained to the social and dining facilitates, the Committee ultimately proposed “the creation

of a unified social and dining system,”

127

CURL envisioned the University overseeing a system

124

“The Curl Report,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 13, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781213-01.2.20&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1-

byDA-txt-txIN-bowen+CURL----1978--

125

“Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life: Second Interim Report,” Princeton University, Office of the President Records:

William G. Bowen, Box 360, Folder 6, (December 1978), 2.

126

Ibid., 3.

127

Ibid., 5.

designed to promote a greater quantity of interactions with more peers (and a more diverse selection

of peers), believing this “[would] inevitably foster a greater number of significant shared

experiences”

128

and subsequent friendships. This University-involved system would be entirely non-

selective and entail official contracts between Princeton and its clubs.

Pushing the clubs to admit women was not a key driver of the CURL proposal. In its

necessitation of non-selectivity, the CURL proposal might be mistakenly construed as a direct

university attempt to grant women entry to the Eating Clubs. However, in February 1981, the

University eventually claimed to require only “seven to nine eating clubs to put together a

functioning upperclass CURL.”

129

In other words, the (ultimately unsuccessful) proposal could have

been implemented while allowing the male-only clubs to exist outside the program. While the

general goal consisted of improving the university’s social environment, its fundamental goal

differed from that of Frank’s, which specifically sought to eliminate the all-male eating clubs and the

associated discrimination. Rather, the termination of discriminatory, male-only admissions policies

would have occurred only if those clubs elected to contract with Princeton. In this case, the clubs’

admittance of women would have been an egalitarian byproduct of Princeton’s primary goal to

facilitate more frequent, diverse student interactions.

In fact, on the philosophy of selective membership criteria (including the barring of women),

the Committee takes a neutral stance, citing “financial and legal questions.”

130

To explain its

unwillingness to financially contract clubs “with open membership policies,”

131

CURL’s final report

details how it could be legally problematic, given Title IX’s passage, for the University to financially

128

Ibid., 6.

129

William Agee, “‘No’ Vote at Quad Kills CURL,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 6, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19811106-01.2.2&srpos=3&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

CURL+eating+clubs------

130

Ibid.

131

“Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life,” Princeton University, May 1979, Office of the President Records:

William G. Bowen, Box 362, Folder 1.

tie itself to selective, male-only clubs.

132

Presumably to avoid antagonizing alumni with strong ties to

selective clubs, the committee placatingly writes: “Our own specific recommendations result, not

from any conviction that the philosophical issues can be or have been resolved.”

133

Here,

“philosophical issues” refers to the arguments both for and against the merits of selective

admissions policies by clubs (including male-only policies). The legitimacy granted to both sides

“philosophical” debate seems odd, given that the crux of the report’s goal (to facilitate more

frequent interaction among all students) rests upon open policies. This simple fact supports the

interpretation of the University’s neutral stance as not wishing to condemn associations closely

linked with it, and/or seeking to avoid upsetting valuable alumni.

Aside from social considerations, the secondary driver of CURL’s proposal was financial.

The Committee cited past financial instability of the Eating Clubs’ system in which clubs’ closing

would force the University to “pick up at least some of the deferred maintenance costs”

134

The

December interim report summarized, “From a purely financial point of view, the situation has been

extremely difficult for everyone.”

135

The final report gestures to high expected inflation in coming

years, rendering it all the more necessary to “enhance” the economic stability” of the dining system.

One can debate the extent to which financial considerations drove this proposal; students at the time

expressed doubt that Princeton’s primary goal was improvement of its campus’s social atmosphere.

Two years after the CURL proposal was released, W. Warren Hamel, a Princeton senior and a

finalist for alumni trustee, argued “. . . under the guise of diversity, the university is pushing CURL

132

A memo from Counsel Thomas Wright to President Bowen discusses legal implications in further detail; he explains that, while

male clubs might be considered exempt from Title IX (like fraternities), this was not certain. He also stresses how, generally, the

University could make itself legally vulnerably by contracting with clubs perceived as discriminatory. See: Office of the President

Records: William G. Bowen, September 10, 1979, Box 360, Folder 6.

133

“Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life,” 6.

134

Ibid., 3.

135

“Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life: Second Interim Report,” 2.

for fiscal management."

136

Though possible that the University downplayed its financial incentives,

it would be unrealistically extreme for the extensive, soundly-argued, socially-based rationale

presented in the CURL reports to be a mere sham. Rather, the University viewed entering into

contract with the Eating Clubs as both socially beneficially and financially prudent.

Though trustees voted to endorse directions outlined in the final CURL report in October

1979,

137

a lack of support from the eating clubs was detrimental to the proposal’s success.

Interestingly, it was not just selective or selective all-male clubs which disliked the idea of being

under contract of the University; In April 1979, “the graduate board of ten of the 13 graduate

boards of the Prospect Avenue eating clubs voted to oppose [CURL’s] second interim report. “

138

November 1981 after the final report’s release, the Princetonian proclaimed CURL “dead” after Quad

became the third non-selective eating club to vote against the proposal; a minimum of nine clubs

were needed to construct the CURL plan, and the Princetonian author deemed it impossible that the

proposal would acquire the “yes” votes needed without the support of non-selective clubs. Though

Princetonian articles from the time posited contributors to CURL’s failure, the clubs’ rejection of the

proposal essentially boiled down to retaining their long-held autonomy (a fact of even the

coeducational, non-selective clubs). According to the Princetonian, “each club in which an

undergraduate referendum was taken showed a good deal of student dissatisfaction with the plan.”

139

Though the graduate board, not the student members, were charged with voting on the Proposal, it

seems likely that students’ negative perception of being managed by the University was shared by the

boards; the proposal involved fundamental change, eradicating longstanding traditions and placing

136

Dough Schwartz, “Alumni Trustee Candidates Discuss Issues,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), March 13, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800313-01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

hamel+CURL------

137

“CURL Plan Endorsed,” Town Topics, (Princeton, NJ), October 24, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19791024-01.2.29&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-trustees+endorse+CURL------

138

William Agee, “’No’ Vote at Quad Kills CURL.”

139

Ibid.

control over Princeton’s social scene in the administration’s hands. By the time that CURL was

ultimately rejected in 1981, Sally Frank was actively pursuing her own route to Eating Clubs change.

Her social goals, unlike Princeton’s, were focused entirely on targeting discrimination.

Sally Frank’s Legal Approach to Egalitarian Policy Change

What began as a mere protest quickly evolved into a legal battle, as Sally Frank became aware

of a venue for legally targeting Princeton’s discriminatory social scene. By 1978, the year in which

Frank and four of her female peers would bicker all-male Eating Clubs as a protest, all but three

clubs had begun admitting women. Frank was not the first woman to bicker the all-male clubs. The

previous year, Colleen Guiney bickered Ivy Club, Cottage Club, and Tiger Inn, though her aim was

not strictly to protest but rather to open a conversation. Guiney told the Princetonian, "Initially I was

curious about the all-male clubs. I wanted to understand it better. . . I thought that the interchange

between the sexes would broaden everyone's experience."

140

She hinted at the possibility of

eliminating all-male clubs, stating “We can begin now, as responsible individuals, to examine

whether all-male clubs is what we want,"

141

Guiney’s actions, therefore, were far from an onslaught

against the clubs.

From the beginning, Frank was determined to end the discriminatory existence of male-only

clubs, not just raise awareness or facilitate a conversation. In a 1978 Princetonian article on Bicker,

Frank was quoted as describing her decision to bicker male clubs as a "protest against discrimination

against women,” as opposed to being out of any genuine desire to obtain a spot in the club. When

asked in a recent interview what initially compelled her, the fact the clubs’ barring women was

principally wrong or the general environment perpetrated by the all-male clubs, she responded: “It

140

Geoffrey Sharpless, “Selective Clubs Report Smooth Bicker Start,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 31, 1977.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19770131-01.2.9&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-colleen+bicker------

141

Ibid.

was the sexism that emanated from the clubs.”

142

She identified the all-male eating clubs as a “most

serious and egregious” aspect of the Princeton social system. This is unsurprising, not just due

discriminatory nature of their admissions policy on paper, but also given the experiences of many

women in the club environments (discussed earlier in the present chapter).

Sally Frank only realized the possibility to escalate her activist actions to legal actions after

working at the ACLU the summer after her sophomore year, recalling ““In terms of the all-male, I

actually at first didn’t know there was a [legal] problem either, but I worked for the ACLU the

summer after my sophomore year and was complaining about them and the executive director said

‘why don’t you sue,’ and I said ‘they’re private,’ and he said, ‘no they’re public,’ and I said okay.

“

143

This question of the University’s relationship to the eating clubs would prove legally critical; if

the clubs were sufficiently linked to the University, then they were public accommodations which

could not deny women (as a group) membership without violating anti-discrimination laws.

Though Frank disliked the eating club system in general, (“If I were designing a college

system I would not have eating clubs”

144

), she recognized a lack of a legal venue for perusing the

system’s dismantling. Instead, she took the director’s advice and sought to improve Princeton’s

social scene by targeting its discriminatory clubs. On February 20, 1979, after being denied

membership offers by the male clubs which she had (at this point) bickered twice, and after having

suffered blatant discrimination when Cottage members poured beer on her head for attending a pre-

bicker open house,

145

Frank filed a complaint with the New Jersey Civil Rights Division against

Princeton University and its single-sex eating clubs.

142

Sally Frank, interview with author, March 24, 2023.

143

Ibid.

144

Ibid.

145

Elena Kagan, “Woman Splashed with Beer at Club Files Assault Charge with University,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

December 7, 1978. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781207-01.2.7&srpos=1&e=------

197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank----1978--

Not to Blame: Princeton Characterizes Relationship to Clubs

In the early years of the case, the University’s public response was minimal, repeatedly

asserting its separation from the clubs and refusing to either openly support or condemn their male-

only admissions practices. Though the University would have preferred its clubs to be coeducational

(and non-selective, for that matter), Princeton initially deemed it prudent to say as little about its

philosophical stance on the matter as possible; outwardly proclaiming its clubs’ right to bar women

could cause Princeton to appear discriminatory, and openly condemning its clubs could upset alumni

and detract from Princeton’s image of a well-oiled, harmonious institution. I will now turn to an

overview of the case’s developments between the time Frank’s first complaint was filed in 1979 and

the turning point of 1986 when the University settled with Frank outside of court. Throughout, I

will particularly emphasize the University’s policy choice to refrain

In her initial 1979 legal complaint, Sally Frank attested that the clubs had violated the New

Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), discriminating against her on the basis of gender. New

Jersey’s LAD was passed in 1945. This being the case, the law makes explicit exemptions for single-

sex educational institutes: “. . . nothing contained herein shall be construed to bar any place of public

accommodation which is in its nature reasonably restricted exclusively to individuals of one sex, and

which shall include but not be limited to any. . . school or educational institution which is restricted

exclusively to individuals of one sex.”

146

In a way, the LAD’s application was dependent upon

Princeton’s decision to admit women in the first place. The Law Against Discrimination generally

applies to (co)educational institutions, the text of the law stating its relevance to “any educational

institution under the supervision of the State Board of Education or the Commissioner of

Education of the State of New Jersey.” Critically, the law goes on to make another exemption:

146

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/NJ-Law-Against-

Discrimination-Most-Updated.pdf

“Nothing herein contained shall be construed to include or to apply to any institution, bona fide

club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private.”

147

Thus, though Princeton

was a coeducational institution beholden to the LAD’s provisions, its eating clubs, if deemed

“distinctly private,” would be exempt.

Princeton was determined that the clubs, though affiliated with the University, were not

“connected” to it. Immediately after Frank’s February complaint was filed, Princeton’s Assistant

Counsel responded that the clubs were "three separate and distinct institutions, none of which have

any connection with the university."

148

Similarly, after the New Jersey Civil Rights Division deemed

the clubs “essentially private” and (initially) dismissed the case in September 1979 General Counsel

Thomas Wright stated that the complaint had “did not involve the University.”

149

As noted, the question of the eating clubs’ relationship to Princeton would determine the

case’s eventual outcome. Of course, with its clubs being publicly defamed as discriminatory, it was in

Princeton’s interest (even from a purely reputation-based standpoint) to deny having “any

connection” to the clubs. Yet, Princeton did no go so far as to stated it disagreed with its clubs’

practices, merely that Princeton was not to blame.

Of note, Princeton repeatedly maintained its lack of connection with the eating clubs, often

in misleading terms for legality’s sake. The claim that “none of [the clubs] have any connection with

the university,” is dubious, as even the university itself had in the past acknowledged the existence of

informal ties between itself and the clubs. For example, in the final CURL report discussed earlier,

the University openly stated, “Traditionally, there have been various kinds of agreements between

147

Ibid.

148

Elena Kagan, “Frank Files Complaint of Sex Bias,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 21, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790221-01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

Frank+Files+Complaint+of+Sex+Bias------

149

Mark Prysant, “Complaint Against Male Eating Clubs Dropped by N.J., Civil Rights Division,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

September 12, 1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790912-01.2.8&srpos=1&e=-----

-197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-did+not+involve+the+University+wright------

the University and the clubs–regarding, for example, student conduct, meal exchanges and

intramural activities.”

150

It would be reasonable to dispute official or meaningful financial ties between

the eating clubs and Princeton, but Princeton’s denial of any connection was exaggerated for the sake

of taking a strong stance of blamelessness.

Briefly attempting a different legal angle, Sally Frank attempted to invoke Title IX in

October of 1979, not dissuaded by the Division’s dismissal of her complaint. Frank submitted a

complaint to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) that the Eating Clubs

had violated Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972.

151

After HEW decided to investigate the

complaint in November of the same year, Frank took its pending inquiry as a positive sign, telling

the Princetonian that “My impression (of the HEW decision to investigate) is that there is enough link

between the university and the clubs to have jurisdiction" (sic.).

152

However, just months later, the

U.S. Department of Education ruled the eating clubs to be exempt from Title IX’s provisions due to

their similarity to fraternities, with the HEW highlighting status as “private social organizations.”

153

Princeton did not formally deny the charges until roughly a year after Frank’s first filed

complaint, cautiously giving the legal issue time to (ideally for Princeton) disappear without the

university’s direct involvement. After Frank filed a new complaint with the Civil Rights Division in

November 1979, emphasizing the Eating Clubs’ role as “arms of Princeton University,”

154

however,

the University formally responded. Princeton’s decision to delay its official response was likely

150

“Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life,” 5.

151

Robert K. Gordon,“Frank Accuses Clubs of Bias: Lodes Complaint With HEW,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 11,

1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791011-01.2.22&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--

1--txt-txIN-Sally+Frank+Title----1979--

152

Robert K. Gordon, “HEW Opts to Investigate Complaint of Sex Bias by All-Male Eating Clubs,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton,

NJ), November 15, 1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791115-

01.2.12&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Sally+Frank+Title----1979--

153

Alan Sipress, “Frank Fails in Attempt to Alter Sexism Ruling,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 5, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810105-01.2.4&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-U.S.+Department+of+Health%2c+Education+and+Welfare+Frank------

154

Frank v. Ivy Club, Justia U.S. Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1988/228-n-j-super-40-

0.html

linked to Wright’s September 1979 comment that Frank’s complaint “did not involve the

university”

155

An official response to Frank’s complaint could have given the appearance that the

University saw itself as implicated, hurting the presentation of its stance as completely uninvolved.

Perhaps, University and its counsel hoped that the complaint would get dismissed, and the issue

would be resolved. However, after perceiving Frank’s determination displayed by her filing a second

complaint with the Civil Rights Division, Wright “formally denied charges by Sally B. Frank '80 that

three eating clubs which Frank had accused of practicing sex discrimination are officially part of the

university. . . in a statement filed with the N.J. Division on Civil Rights”

156

in January 1980.

For the first few years of the case, Counsel Wright served as Princeton’s primary

spokesperson for the case; administrators tended to refrain from publicly commenting. After the

Division dismissed Frank’s second complaint in December 1982, the Princetonian conducted an

interview with Princeton Counsel Thomas Wright. According to Wright, Frank attempted to prove

the clubs’ connection to Princeton by citing “13 ties in all, including use of university financial aid to

pay club dues, the use of club libraries for university classes, the access of university security to the

clubs, and the application of university disciplinary rules on Prospect Avenue.”

157

Wright explained

that, despite these “ties,” the lack of University financial support to the clubs was central to the

Division’s ultimate dismissal of the complaint, attesting, “Although the university does provide

indirect benefits to the clubs, there has not been the transfer of a single dollar.” The Division

concurred with Wright’s financially-based rationale.

158

155

Prysant,“Complaint Against Male Eating Clubs Dropped by N.J., Civil Rights Division.”

156

Robert K. Gordon, “Wright Answers Frank’s Complaint: Refutes Official Club-University Link,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

February 6, 1980. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800206-01.2.15&srpos=2&e=-------

en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-a+statement+filed+with+the+N.J.+Division+on+Civil+Rights------

157

Andrew Bary, “Frank’s Claim Denied,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 13, 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820113-01.2.2&srpos=7&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-sally+frank----1982--

158

Money, arguably always at least a consideration in policy decisions, also had an influential role in legal considerations.

Frank’s persistence was critical to the eventual legally-mandated coeducation of the eating

clubs. In February 1982, having since graduated from Princeton, Frank appealed the Division’s

dismissal of her complaints with the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The

female author of a Princetonian article written at the time expressed that it was “good to know that

the exclusivity of the all-male clubs is not going unchallenged.”

159

Though just one woman’s opinion,

Atatimur’s attitude is markedly different from the complacent stances proclaimed by women

bickering just a few years earlier. The widely publicized nature of Frank’s legal battle against the

clubs likely compelled more students to take an interest in the matter, also instilling a previously-

absent hope that the discrimination underlying Princeton’s social scene could be defeated. Atatimur

also recognizes the enduring tendency for members of the all-male clubs to regard women merely as

social (and sexual) objects, stating “when women are invited [to the male clubs], they are asked only

because of what they can provide to the men, and not because they are people too.” Based on

Atatimur’s account, sexism– aided and abetted by the presence of single-sex clubs –continued to be

deeply ingrained into Princeton’s social scene in 1982, echoing the experiences of women discussed

earlier in the chapter.

Frank clearly shared Atatimur’s belief that the clubs and university were significantly

connected, despite the previous rejections of her complaints. After filing her appeal with the

Appellate Division, Frank’s complaint was returned to the Division on Civil Rights during the

summer of 1983. In a promising change of trajectory for the case, the Appellate Division found that

the University-Eating Clubs relationship bore more investigation, stating: "the furnishing of meals

159

Sara Atatimur, “Bicker Goes to Court,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 4, 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820204-01.2.17&srpos=3&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-sally+frank----1982--

and food by way of the exchanging of gratuities, if no way else, suggests a nexus which may well

constitute a challenge to the claim of the clubs to an individual private status."

160

During this stage of the legal proceedings, Princeton continued to navigate the situation with

reservation. Frank recalls, “In 1983. . . at our first appeal in the New Jersey Court of Appeals, one

of the judges asked Princeton’s lawyer what Princeton’s view of the eating clubs was, and he would

not take a position.”

161

Given Princeton’s thoughtful approach to public relations, the attorney’s

silence likely indicated a choice to refrain from taking a stance rather than a lack of stance. Nearly

two years passed before the Division released a decision. Sensing that legal tides could be shifting in

favor of Frank, the University decided to publicly take a philosophical stance on the matter just prior

to the decision’s release.

Princeton Takes a Stance Against its Eating Clubs

The University’s decision to speak out against the eating clubs was strategically timed. They

spoke out less than a week before the Division’s decision was released, getting ahead of the

impending ruling against the clubs. At this time, the Daily Princetonian printed an article containing a

quote from Princeton University Counsel Wright which, for the first time, firmly conveyed the

University’s distaste for the three eating clubs’ refusal to admit women: “‘The university considers

itself an innocent bystander. . . The clubs' policies are inconsistent with and contrary to university

policy. We in no way support their position. . . The university doesn't think, though, that it can force

the clubs to admit women.’”

162

Wright’s expressed sentiments are steeped in fear of being labeled as

discriminatory; Princeton’s Counsel apparently felt compelled to proclaim outwardly the University’s

160

“Sex Discrimination Case Against 3 Clubs Sent Back to State’s Civil Rights Division,” Town Topics, August 3, 1983.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19830803-01.2.3&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1983--

161

Sally Frank, interview with author, March 24, 2023.

162

Christopher Lu, “Division on Civil Rights to Rule on Frank Case,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 8, 1985.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19850508-01.2.4&srpos=4&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1985--

“innocence,” not wishing its reputation to be tainted by the unruly actions of its undergraduate

social clubs. It should be noted that this change in tactic from the University does not represent a

departure from its earlier public position; it continues to emphasize its separation from the clubs,

Rather, it is an expansion which states that, though separate from the clubs, the University does not

approve of single-sex policies club.

Initially, Princeton had likely wanted to avoid condemning its own clubs, given the clear

association between the two. Though Princeton did not have legal power over the clubs, such a

condemnation could have reflected poorly on Princeton, both as it displayed in-house fighting and

simply due to the perceived connection between Princeton and its clubs. By May 1985, images of the

clubs themselves were already publicly tainted, broadly publicized for their discriminatory nature. At

this point, Princeton no longer had anything to gain from refraining critique; its reputation would be

better served by asserting that Princeton itself was not discriminatory.

The University’s timing in denouncing the Eating Clubs was savvy, likely stemming from a

correct prediction of the Division’s ruling; on May 14, 1985, the New Jersey’s Civil Rights Division

officially found the Princeton Eating Clubs’ to be public accommodations, meaning that their

conduct did, in fact, fall under the jurisdiction of the Division, despite the multiple prior erroneous

dismissals of Frank’s case. Deputy Civil Rights Director James Sincaglia stated: "Princeton

University, which is a public accommodation, and the eating clubs are so inexorably linked that the

eating clubs are also places of public accommodation."

163

The fact that the clubs would not exist

without Princeton sufficiently linked them to the University so as to place them in the “public” legal

category. This rationale diverged from the emphasis previously placed on the University's lack of

financial ties to the clubs. Though the parties were encouraged to reach an agreement, a Princetonian

163

Edward Niestat and Katja David, “Commission Favors Frank in Club Discrimination Suit,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May

15, 1985.https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19850515-01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20-

-1--txt-txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1985--

article from just after the Division’s May ruling quoted Frank as asserting the slim likelihood of a

compromise; the clubs had repeatedly conveyed their refusal to admit women and Frank herself

“would not be satisfied unless the clubs agreed to accept women.”

164

Thus, it would seem that Frank

and the eating clubs were destined to find themselves at an impasse, calling for further legal ruling.

Now that the University had broken its silence, it appeared committed to the strategy of

denouncing the clubs as anti-discriminatory. In October of 1985, Princeton’s Press Officer (and

soon to be director of communications) Justin Harmon penned an article for the Princeton Weekly

Bulletin entitled “The Frank case: what it means for clubs, University.” He explains the University’s

precarious position; if the “‘integral connection’ asserted by the Division stands in court, then the

court would have the right to make a finding of discrimination against both the clubs and the

University.”

165

Harmon again emphasized Princeton’s technical helplessness (and, hence,

blamelessness) in the matter, stating that the clubs’ membership policies “clearly conflict with

University policy, yet the clubs’ history of legal and financial independence has precluded direct

efforts by the University to influence those policies.”

166

There exists an underlying implication to Harmon’s statement that, given the University’s

(supposedly) clear anti-discriminatory stance, if the University did possess the means to exert

influence over the eating clubs’ membership policies, it would have. In this hypothetical, Princeton’s

decision would have been complicated by alumni connections to the clubs and the unrest which

forcing all-male clubs into admitting women would create. Given the CURL reports’ tactful

avoidance of condemning male clubs or blatantly stating that the University would prefer them to

admit women, Princeton would have been unlikely to strongarm its clubs into admitting women

164

Ibid.

165

Justin Harmon, “The Frank case: What it means for clubs, University.” Princeton Weekly Bulletin, 14 October 1985, in William M.

Rivinius Papers on The Sally Frank Case, Box 1, Folder 1.

166

Ibid.

against their wishes. Given the three all-male clubs’ determination to fight Frank’s suits, it seems

likely they would have resisted any attempt by Princeton to grant women membership. As was

discussed at length in Chapter 1, Princeton policy decision makers faced several considerations when

deciding whether to admit women to the University, and one such factor was the potentially

detrimental impact that admittance of women could have on financial giving. It was ultimately

deemed that the potential loss in funding was not so great so as to warrant foregoing coeducation.

Had Princeton held greater influence over their clubs, it would have faced a smaller, yet parallel,

decision. Should it publicly decry discrimination, paint itself as progressive, and ensure that all eating

clubs welcome women? Or, should it retain the support of alumni invested in the male status of

their alma mater clubs?

Even in a hypothetical world in which Princeton wielded greater influence over its clubs, the

University still could have feasibly denied responsibility for the clubs’ policies, taking a “hands off”

approach unavailable to it in the decision to admit women to the University. Given Princeton’s

previously exhibited priorities, Princeton would have been unlikely to oppose discrimination for

pure progressiveness’s sake without weighing other relevant factors, even while harboring a genuine

preference for the clubs to be coeducational. If neither its quality of students nor reputation were

jeopardized by retaining male eating clubs after the coeducation of the University, it seems likely that

Princeton would have claimed a path of inaction. Insinuations that Princeton would have done

otherwise, like those made by Harmon, are primarily a means of damage control employed after the

clubs’ membership practices had become a matter of extremely public controversy.

Again, while Princeton had long desired their clubs to become non-selective (inherently

entailing coeducational admissions policies), Princeton only shared this view publicly relatively late in

the legal case, once the clubs’ fate was sealed In the same Princeton Weekly Bulletin article, the Dean of

Students is quoted as affirming the clubs’ general “trend” towards progressive “non-selectivity”

since 1969, stating: “The club system has become more heterogeneous, reflecting changes in the

University itself. Eight of the 13 clubs are open to men and women and are non-selective. Two are

co-ed and selective; only three remain all-male and selective. Overall, the shift has been in a positive

direction. Obviously, we want the trend towards openness and non-selectivity to continue.”

167

this point it was in Princeton’s interest to take a firmer stance, as the clubs had been cemented in the

public’s eyes as discriminatory “in the pejorative sense of the term” (to quote the 1974 Report’s

discussion of discrimination.)

With the clause “reflecting the University itself” the Dean highlights Princeton’s own

progressive, expanding diversity, attempting to monitor Princeton’s public reputation. He effectively

reminds observers that any enduring controversial exclusivity of Princeton’s clubs did not reflect

Princeton itself. It was impossible to divorce entirely the clubs from Princeton (particularly in light

of the Division’s 1985 ruling), and Lowe Jr. attempts to ameliorate the negative attention recently

placed on three of Princeton’s Eating Clubs (and, by extension, the University itself) through

emphasizing their single-sex status as being an outlier in Princeton’s “heterogenous” social scene.

Princeton Proclaims Itself Anti-Discriminatory via Settlement

In the early stages of the case, Princeton remained as neutral as possible, not accepting

blame but also not condemning the clubs, repeatedly affirming the separate nature of the two and

Princeton’s lack of jurisdiction. As seen in the previous section, Princeton’s strategy changed just

prior to the 1985 ruling that the clubs were “public accommodations.” Princeton’s marked change

in rhetoric indicates its perception of the clubs’ imminent defeat. At this point, the potentially grave

damage to Princeton’s reputation would have dwarfed other concerns, prompting Princeton to

speak out. In July of 1986, just following Cottage Club’s decision to resignedly bow out of the legal

battle, Princeton solidified its stance as anti-single-sex eating club via its settlement with Sally Frank.

167

Ibid.

Perceiving the direction in which the suit seemed inevitably headed, Cottage Club and

University settled the lawsuit at similar times. Cottage, believing its loss of the suit imminent,

deemed it unreasonably costly to continue fighting against Frank, instead deciding to cut its losses.

Similarly, while the university obviously desired to have been found blameless, it deemed this

outcome unlikely and instead seized the opportunity to settle with Frank in a way allowing for

Princeton’s public self-proclamation as anti-discriminatory. This option was far superior to the

alternative, in which Princeton risked being deemed “guilty” without getting the chance to denounce

the discriminatory action for which it was being found partially accountable.

The Cottage Graduate Board’s 1986 decision to admit women was strategic, not reflecting an

ideological change. A Cottage Club press release stated that “The Graduate Board of Governors of

the University Cottage Club at Princeton determined at its January 8, 1986 meeting that its

membership shall be open to women undergraduates of Princeton University on the same basis as

men undergraduates.”

168

In an October 1985 letter to current members of Cottage Club, the

Graduate Board explained its thinking on whether to admit women to Cottage or appeal the

Division’s determination that the clubs a were in violation of the LAD. While stating in the letter

that the Board desired “the benefit of the opinions of all members interested in the future of the

Club,” the letter itself obviously articulated the prudence in accepting women. Cottage’s board cited

monetary costs of $30,000 to date, sharing, “. . . we could easily spend this amount or more in the

appeals process.”

169

The letter also emphasized the likely futility of an appeal and stressed the

particular difficulty of winning favor with the New Jersey Supreme Court “due to its alleged

liberalism and feminine bias.” (There is something amusing yet concerning in Cottage’s construal of

a court opposed to discrimination against women as harboring a “feminine bias.”) Ultimately, the

168

James L. Crawford, The University Cottage Club, Princeton, New Jersey, January 8, 1986, in Office of the Dean of Undergraduate

Students Records, Box 43.

169

Ibid.

Graduate Board failed to accommodate undergraduate opinions, with a Princetonian article reporting

that “The board made the decision over the objections of most undergraduate members of the club,

more than four-fifths of whom had voted in early November to remain all-male.”

170

When Princeton reached an agreement with Frank, it shielded itself from being viewed as

discriminatory by using the opportunity to again denounce the two remaining male-only clubs. On

July 22, 1986, the University Communications/Publications Office announced that Princeton and

Sally Frank settled outside of the courtroom,

171

stating: “[Princeton] states its disapproval of and

disassociation from discrimination on the basis of sex in the admissions practices of the two

remaining all-male clubs (Ivy Club and Tiger Inn.)” The University's signed agreement and

accompanying statements was a means of publicly dissociating itself from the controversial policies

of its clubs. The agreement included a monetary exchange: “The University will pay Frank $27,000

for legal expenses of Frank and her co-counsel, and other expenses.”

172

Frank explained Princeton’s

opposition to the term “damages,” which would convey explicit wrongdoing by the University.

173

Undeterred, Male Clubs Fight to the Bitter End

Both Tiger and Ivy remained committed to continuing the lawsuit when given an

opportunity. In May 1987, Pamela Poff ruled that that Tiger Inn and Ivy Club must admit women in

addition to each paying Frank $5,000 in damages. The day following Poff’s announced decision, the

President of Tiger’s graduate board told the Princetonian that they “planned to appeal the ruling.”

174

Ivy would soon decide to continue the legal battle as well. In March of the same year, Princeton

University had filed exceptions in the case proceeding, which urged “the Civil Rights director to

170

Christopher Lu and Mike Orszag, “Cottage Club to Admit Women,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ) January 10, 1986.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19860110-01.2.2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

Cottage+settle+Frank----1986--

171

Justin Harmon. News from Princeton University, July 22, 1986, in Rivinus Papers News Clippings and Correspondence Box 1, Folder 1.

172

Ibid.

173

Sally Frank, interview with author, March 24, 2023.

174

John Young, “Ivy, T.I. told to go Coed,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 27, 1987.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19870527-01.2.2&srpos=4&e=-04-1987--06-1987-198-

en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1987--

modify the proposed remedy either to require Ivy and Tiger to admit women members or to

delineate specifically both the relationships which must now be severed between the clubs and the

University.”

175

Based on a brief written by Counsel Wright on the exceptions, the University

preferred the former option, loathe to divide itself officially from Tiger and Ivy.

176

Yet, in May, Poff

highlighted an option for the clubs to formally sever ties with Princeton, seemingly conveying that

doing so would “remove the clubs from consideration as public accommodations.”

177

Shortly after the May 1987 decision was released, President Bowen released a bold public

sentiment displaying overwhelming (and somewhat excessive) pleasure at the ruling against the

clubs. Bowen was quoted as saying, “Our primary concern is that the clubs be open to men and

women alike.”

178

The Dean of Students was so bold as to claim that Princeton had hoped its clubs

would be ruled against as illegally discriminatory, stating "This is what so many of us were hoping

would occur as a result of this litigation.”

179

Of course, Princeton would have most preferred that the

litigation (and the public attention it drew to Princeton’s discriminatory clubs) had never occurred in

the first place. This is evidenced by CURL report in which they took pains to avoid getting into a

legal mess. The reported stated that they could not financially support male clubs, as this would

leave the University open to litigation bur refrained from opposing outright the existence of male

clubs. Similarly, in response to a 1980 Princetonian prediction that “a ruling in favor of Frank would

assume Princeton to be a public accommodation, the student author predicts that such a ruling

would place the University “under scrutiny by state agencies monitoring admissions, housing, food

services, hiring and scholarship programs,” Counsel Wright voiced his distaste for the prospect,

175

Justin Harmon, News from Princeton University, Communications/Publications Office, February 27, 1987, Shapiro President

Records, Legal Sally Frank.

176

Thomas Wright, Brief on Behalf of Respondent the Trustees of Princeton University, 1990, in Office of the President Records:

Harold T. Shapiro, Box 32.

177

Ibid.

178

Carol A Platt, “Eight-year Frank litigation reflects changing opinions,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 27, 1987.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19870527-01.2.3&srpos=6&e=-04-1987--06-1987-198-

en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women------

179

Ibid.

stating "It's never an advantage to have to deal with another agency of the government.”

180

It was

only once the damage had already been done to the clubs’ (and by association, Princeton’s)

reputation that Princeton preferred the litigation against the clubs to triumph.

University officials used the ruling as an opportunity to publicly express the University’s

stance as being opposed to discrimination and, significantly, as being on the side of the law. At this

point in the case, the eating clubs’ barring of women had already been labeled legally problematic; to

do anything but outwardly agree wholeheartedly with the law’s findings would cause Princeton as an

institution to appear controversial and discriminatory.

Though fully aware of Princeton’s disapproval, Tiger and Ivy continued tactics to prevent

the admittance of women after Director Poff issued a stay allowing the clubs to appeal the May

decision in the summer of 1987. After receiving a letter from Tiger Inn’s President of its Board of

Governors announcing Tiger’s intent to sever connections with the University,

181

Bowen attempted

to persuade the President otherwise. He states that “the larger University community would be

served much more fully if the Tiger Inn were to elect to admit women students and to remain a part

of the club system.”

182

Bowen appeals, also, to the interests of Tiger Inn, shedding doubt on the

feasibility of Tiger operating “with provisions for ‘full separation’ in place,” suggesting that the club

might eventually find itself wanting for Princeton members and forced to accept “individuals who

are not connected to Princeton University.”

183

Given the Princeton-based identity held by its eating

clubs, Bowen’s suggestion would likely prove distasteful to Tiger Inn’s board and members. Clearly,

Bowen hoped to persuade Tiger Inn to admit women for the good of the University, an action

180

Ibid.

181

John A. O’Brien, The Tiger Inn Centennial Campaign. 17 June 1987. Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Student Records, Box

43: Series 2: Student Activities and Organizations

182

William G. Bowen to John A. O’Brien, July 21,1987, Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Student Records, Box 43: Series 2:

Student Activities and Organizations

183

Ibid.

which would help Princeton avoid continued negative publicity. Failing to heed Bowen’s advice,

Tiger’s attempt to sever ties was unsuccessful, getting dismissed in November.

184

In October 1987, Counsel Thomas Wright penned a troubled letter an Ivy Board of

Governors member, asserting his personal conviction that Ivy should admit women, as they were

“hurting themselves and the University.”

185

Again, Princeton’s legal counsel and administrators were

primarily concerned that the clubs were making a big “to-do” and hurting Princeton’s reputation as

anti-discriminatory, the actual issue of equality being secondary.

After Ivy and Tiger saw one last glimmer of hope in the form of a February 1988 decision

reversal, Frank successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to hear the case in September 1989.

186

Frank’s case was a closely followed development on campus, with protests staged outside of Tiger

and Ivy during 1989 bicker.

187

In February of 1990, both clubs independently voted to admit

women.

188

In June, Frank and her supporters saw legal victory when the Supreme Court officially

ruled that Ivy Club and Tiger Inn must admit women.

189

The Legacy of Sally Frank’s Battle and the University’s Final Word

Though both clubs initially fought against this ruling, a final settlement concluded the case in

1992. The clubs’ lawyers argued that the crux of the case itself had nothing to do with women and

instead centered around the clubs’ distaste for being told what to do. Ivy’s graduate chair claimed,

184

John Young, “Poff Rejects Tiger Inn Motion for Dismissal of Frank Lawsuit,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ) November 19,

1987. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19871119-01.2.5&srpos=13&e=-06-1987--12-

1987-198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1987--

185

Thomas C. Wright to Regan Kerney, October 29, 1987 in Office of the President Records: Harold T. Shapiro Subgroup: Subseries

2D: Legal / Frank, Sally v. Princeton University, Box 32.

186

“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Frank Suit,” Town Topics, (Princeton, NJ), September 27, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19890927-01.2.22&srpos=5&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1989--

187

Ellen K Pao, “Frank awaits court ruling on suit; students protest against Ivy, Tiger,”Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 18,

1989. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19890218-01.2.16&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--

1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1989--

188

“Ivy Club and Tiger Inn Vote to Admit Women,” Town Topics, (Princeton, NJ), February 21, 1990.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19900221-01.2.31&srpos=1&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1990--

189

“Applauding Decision: Clubs Must Take Initiative,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), September 13, 1990.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19900913-01.2.19&srpos=3&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-supreme+court+ivy+tiger+june----1990--

“Our right of freedom of choice and the fact we are a private institution (was) the key to our

struggle, not the issue of women. . . Sally Frank happened to challenge our privacy with the issue of

women" (sic.).

190

It seems far-fetched that the clubs, who had remained opposed to admitting

women for so long, viewed the legal battle as having nothing to do with women.

At the same time, they likely took particular offense at being bossed around legally, and all

owing to the actions of one woman. Tiger Inn’s attorney Russel Beatie spoke of Frank

contemptuously, arguing that the clubs were the true winners, “"I don't care how much blather she

says about how she won, she knows she turned tail and ran.” Beatie portrays Frank as a “blathering”

cowardly woman, and his comment reeks of enduring misogyny. His misguided belief regarding

Frank’s loss was owing to the fact that the clubs ultimately paid a monetary amount substantially

lower than initially sought. Though the clubs were sore losers (or sore winners, if one asks them),

Frank viewed the case as a long-awaited victory: “The federal suit was dismissed. . . the clubs are still bound

by the order to admit women. That's what I fought for” (Emphasis mine).

Following the 1990 Supreme Court’s ruling on the case, Frank’s received “The Alumni

Council Award for Service to Princeton.” The award citation appears overtly concerned with

correcting any assumption that Princeton and Frank might be at odds. In fact, it comes across less as

a commendation for Frank’s work bettering Princeton and more as an assurance to readers that

Frank, despite her one-time legal stance against the University, loved Princeton.

The Princeton alumni council wished to make it plain that Frank taking issue with one

aspect of Princeton did not equate to her harboring a general dislike for Princeton. The citation’s

opening paragraph states that “. . . her feelings for Princeton [were] positive and genuine.”

191

In what

190

Erik Swain, “Frank, Clubs End Battle,” (Princeton, NJ), Daily Princetonian, June 5, 1992.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19920605-01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Tiger+Ivy+Frank----1992--

191

The Alumni Council Award for Service to Princeton, Sally B. Frank ’80 in Office of Communications Records, Box 110.

feels a bit like beating a dead horse, the citation uses a baseball analogy to further emphasize this

point: “Sally is an ardent Yankees fan. She’s not crazy about George Steinbrenner, but she can be

loyal to an institution even when she doesn’t approve of all the policies of management.” The

citation openly acknowledges Frank’s status as a controversial figure who did not always appear to be

incredibly pro-Princeton. (For example, Frank failed to donate her settlement funds to Princeton

University, a point on which the clubs’ attorneys berated her.

192

)

In the decade-long legal battle, Sally Frank and her mission gained a great deal of publicity;

given Frank’s status as a public figure, Princeton could have reasonably worried that admirers of

Frank would inherently become disapprovers of Princeton. In no uncertain terms, Princeton’s award

to Frank announces a lack of bad blood between the parties. It is as if Princeton is saying: “You

admire Sally for making our institution better! No problem, so do we!” Sally Frank may have been

the key agent in effecting fundamental change in the policies of Princeton’s social system but

Princeton, as was continuously the case in the Eating Clubs legal saga, carefully protected its

reputation from charges of discrimination.

As the University protected its reputation from tarnishing charges of social discrimination in

the 1970s and ‘80s, it was also fielding internal claims of academic discrimination, to be discussed in

the next chapter.

192

Erik Swain. “Frank, Clubs End battle,” (Princeton, NJ), Daily Princetonian, June 5, 1992.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19920605-01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Tiger+Ivy+Frank----1992--

CHAPTER THREE

“A FRIVOLOUS AND TRENDY ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE”: PRINCETON’S ROAD

TO WOMEN’S STUDIES

Introduction

This chapter examines the fight for and eventual founding of a women’s program of studies

(today, called Gender and Sexuality Studies). Faculty and student activism were instrumental in

Princeton’s eventual administrative decision to implement a women’s studies program in 1981,

showcasing a journey of progressive policy change distinct from those in the first two chapters.

Princeton’s reluctance to create a women’s studies program indicates not administration’s inability to

recognize the value of women’s studies, but rather a diplomatic hesitancy to do so overtly. A

women’s studies program was established only when doing so would not appear overwhelmingly

political, and only when Princeton became convinced that such a program was necessary to keep up

with its elite peers.

Longstanding Struggle for Legitimacy: The Development of Women’s Studies

As noted in previous chapters, the 1970s in the United States was a time of progressive

change for women’s education, as a final wave of stubborn, single-sex schools became

coeducational. In 1972, Title IX’s passage compelled this trend forward by mandating equal

admissions policies at public institutions. Though Princeton’s very first, small group of women were

admitted in 1969, the 1970s were a critical time for Princeton’s development into a coeducational

institution, as women began to constitute a more significant proportion of the student body.

It was not just the proliferation of educational opportunities for women which was

occurring in the 1970s but also a movement toward the recognition of women and the perspective

of women as a legitimate academic area of study. Marilyn J. Boxer’s 1982 essay, entitled “For and

About Women: The Theory and Practice of Women’s Studies in the United States” details the

development of women’s studies as an academic discipline.

193

Boxer herself was a women’s historian

and served as chair of San Diego State University's (SDSU) Women’s Studies program, the first of

such programs in the United States. She explains that women’s studies itself “appeared in the last

half of the 1960s when women faculty in higher education. . . began to create new courses that

would facilitate more reflection on female experience and feminist aspiration.”

194

Yet, these

endeavors often struggled to gain traction or legitimacy, as the woman’s point of view in academia

was long-overlooked. Boxer describes how a 1970 essay calling for a women’s studies program at

Cornell University examined the “neglect and distortion of women in university courses and

curricula.”

195

1970 was a particularly noteworthy year for women’s studies, as it saw the first university

women’s studies program. San Diego State University made history with the first program, thought

it consisted of just five courses (a number that would likely be considered measly for any academic

department now). In the following decade, the expansion of women’s studies took off, with

hundreds of programs founded between 1970 and 1980, and more than 30,000 courses on women’s

studies being offered at United States institutions.

196

(Princeton was not among these hundreds to

found a women’s studies program in the 1970s.)

Those advocating for women’s studies at Princeton would have to contend with the

longstanding failure of others to recognize women’s studies as legitimate and/or desirable. This

challenge has persisted into the 21

century. Boxer describes the way in which women’s studies is

often seen as inherently political, describing it as having an additional purpose “to expose and

redress the oppression of women.”

197

The tension between political and academic notions of

193

Marilyn J. Boxer, “For and About Women: The Theory and Practice of Women’s Studies in the United States,” Spring 1982.

194

Ibid., 663.

195

Ibid., 664.

196

Ibid., 662.

197

Ibid., 667.

women’s studies would appear in Princeton’s own policy battle to create a program in the discipline,

as advocates struggled to gain support and onlookers viewed advocates as inherently political

“feminists.”

198

In a 2010 NPR interview with Beverly Guy-Sheftall, then-president of the National

Women's Studies Association, the interviewer asked Guy-Sheftall to address the fact that “there are

those who reject the idea of these departments as academically valid.”

199

Guy-Sheftall, having earlier

in the interview defined women’s studies as “the study of women and issues surrounding women

such as: race, class, gender, sexuality,” defended the discipline: “. . . it is really an intellectual pursuit;

it is academically rigorous, and it is really not about identity politics in that way. . . it really is about

trying to understand 50 percent of the human family.” Though Princeton admitted women in 1969,

it would be more than a decade for an academic program to be established that outwardly

recognized the academic study and perspective of women as desirable and valid.

Women’s Studies Not a Priority: First Steps Down a Long Road of Activism

Faculty and students, not administrators, began the discussion about women’s studies at

Princeton. The first whispers of women’s studies as a potential program occurred in 1974, situated

roughly midway through the decade that saw a great expansion in both scholarship about women

and the founding of university women’s studies programs. In April of 1974, the women’s faculty

group at Princeton chose to formally associate with the Princeton University Women's

Organization, citing a belief that women at Princeton should “speak with one voice.”

200

The need

felt by female faculty to create and maintain a united front in order to “speak” conveys their sense of

difficulty being heard by administration. The Princetonian article announcing the union reported that

198

Nabers Cabaniss, “Feminists request women’s courses.” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 10, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781110-01.2.18&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1978--

199

Beverly Guy-Sheftall, interview by Michel Martin, “A Look Back at Women’s Studies Since the 1970s,” NPR, March 17, 2010

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124775888

200

Cynthia Read, “Female faculty join women’s group,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 17, 1974.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740417-01.2.7&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1974--

the committee intended to “explore the possibilities of instituting a women's studies program and of

developing a pamphlet about existing women's studies courses” at a meeting held the following

week. Just years after the first class of female undergraduates were admitted, women’s studies was a

concept being explored, but not yet advocated.

201

Princeton was initially wary of those advocating for women’s studies, owing to their

political/activist association. In Read’s 1974 Princetonian article, committee member Kathryn D.

Boals commented that the administration’s attitude had shifted away from “fear” after the women’s

faculty organization had refrained from “stirring up public controversy.”

202

Instead of being

primarily concerned with addressing legitimate issues raised by female faculty, the Princeton

administration was, according to Boals, principally worried that women’s groups would incite

dissension. This caution towards substantial change and dislike for turmoil is, (as was evidenced by

the previous two chapters) characteristic of Princeton’s policymaking approach.

The proportionally small number of female faculty employed by Princeton circa 1974 surely

contributed to the felt need of these women to form a united front. Though an April 1974 press

release announced the addition of “women as junior faculty members,”

203

the projected faculty for

the coming 1974-1975 academic year would be comprised of only two percent women. During this

time, the Dean of the Faculty Aaron Lemonick claimed, “We're committed [to increasing the

number of women professors].”

204

Yet, based on the actual quantities of women being employed by

the university, claims such as Lemonick’s reflected administrative commitment to appearing

progressive more than a genuine concern for diversifying Princeton’s faculty. Princeton’s first female

201

This early stage of policy development bears some similarity to the earliest stages of eating club activism discussed in Chapter 2, in

which the Colleen Guiney, the first woman to bicker all-male clubs intended to start a conversation (rather than protesr.)

202

Ibid.

203

Bob Ruxin and Cynthia Read, “University Adds Women at Junior Faculty Levels,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 23,

1974. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740423-01.2.6&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Lemonick+we%27re+committed------

204

Ibid.

professor, Suzanne Keller, viewed the University’s claims with skepticism. Although acknowledging

marked improvement from the time she first arrived at Princeton, Keller stated, “The fact that there

are still departments without women professors at any level cannot reflect great concern on the part

of the university."

205

Over the following years, the failure of female professors to obtain tenure

would be a matter of contention among the female faculty, directly impacting the leadership of the

Women’s Studies Program.

Various instances validated the doubt expressed by Professor Keller regarding the

University’s active commitment to its claim, one key example being Princeton’s failure to

recommend Assistant Professor of English Lynne T.R. Hanley for reappointment.

After learning of the University’s March 1974 decision, Hanley wrote to Lemonick, Dean of the

Faculty, searching for clarification. In response, Dean Lemonick “told the English department to

give Hanley the one-year reappointment,”

206

a seemingly submissive response. The letter, of course,

changed nothing about Hanley’s qualifications. The letter’s very existence, did, however, question

the decision’s justness. The University’s quickness to acquiesce, reversing its decision and granting

Hanley the appointment, throws into question the fairness of the initial decision-making process.

Hanley told the Princetonian that she suspected her known interest in women’s studies contributed to

the initial decision, sharing that she had “no encouragement from the department in the last year to

make her women's studies seminar” and that “the letter from [English department chairman] Baker

had made no mention of her contributions in the field of women's studies.”

207

It is impossible to

prove whether the initial decision was significantly influenced by Hanley’s interest in women’s studies.

Yet, for her to confidently ascribe such motives to the administration, Hanley must have keenly felt

205

Ibid.

206

Evan Radcliffe, “Hanley links original denial to women’s studies interest,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), March 14, 1975.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19750314-01.2.3&srpos=5&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

positive+consideration+in+hiring------

207

Ibid.

a lack of support or validation in her pursuit of women’s studies as a discipline. In fact, Hanley never

reaped the benefits of the reappointment for which she successfully argued; instead, she resigned.

Though not necessarily indicative of an antipathy towards women’s studies from the hiring

committee, Hanley’s experience certainly displayed that women’s studies was not a priority.

Purportedly, the English department hiring committee told Hanley that “none of the newly hired

women faculty had expressed an interest in women's studies, and that such an interest was not a

positive consideration in hiring.”

208

Another assistant English professor who had been reappointed

in 1975 shared Hanley’s view of the department, believing that, in the eyes of the departmental

faculty, “women’s studies was not legitimate.” Though English chairman Baker disputed this view,

he did acknowledge that there was no intention to expand women’s studies within the English

department. Whether or not administrators and hiring committees saw women’s studies as

“legitimate,” they clearly did not, at this time, deem desirable an expansion of women’s studies.

Halting Progress: Committee on Women’s Studies Gains Recognition on Paper

Activist efforts began gaining traction in December 1975, when the unofficial “Committee

on Women’s Studies,” a group of female faculty devoted to expanding the discipline, sought official

recognition from the Council of the Humanities.

209

The acting coordinator of the committee

anticipated potential pushback against the Committee’s request, citing “the general sense that

women's studies ought not to exist or be supported even minimally, because women ought not to be

here.”

210

After only six years of functioning as a coeducational institution, Princeton’s female faculty

were still small in number, and, according to Judith Wilt, not always made to feel welcome.

211

At this

208

Ibid.

209

Wendy Healy, “Women’s studies hopes for official committee standing,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 11, 1975.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19751211-01.2.14&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Women%27s+Studies+committee----1975--

210

Ibid.

211

Wilt’s quotation indicates that the enduring, masculine-dominated atmosphere detailed in Chapter Two was not unique to the

student experience, as it was also present in Princeton’s world of faculty.

point, committee members did not expect an official program to be founded any time soon, due to

inadequate resources. Instead, committee members recognized growing student interest in the

discipline and simply wished for “people to know what [was]being done,”

212

regarding the furthering

of women’s studies. The Committee got its wish; by January of the following year, the University

had decided to officially recognize the Women’s Studies Committee.

213

The newly-recognized committee pursued a dynamic approach to women’s studies, striving

for the establishment of new women’s studies courses and advocating for “women's studies [to

have] a more prominent role in existing programs and departments.”

214

This latter goal fits within

the approach of integration referenced in Boxer’s historical essay. According to Boxer, some

academics in women’s studies held the view that “women's studies should be integrated into general

education by redefinition and expansion of basic required courses rather than offered as an

alternative general education curriculum.”

215

Soon-to-be program chair Janet M. Martin highlighted

the particular importance of integration, believing the implementation of women’s studies into

traditional courses could help overcome the treatment of “male achievement as if it were central,”

216

an approach found in many of Princeton’s traditional courses. To this end, Martin emphasizes the

importance of self-reflection among Professors who may be teaching courses with discriminatory

undertones (or overtones), explaining, “Each faculty member will have to decide, 'Does my course

discriminate against women’ . . . and changes will have to be made.”

217

Martin viewed the

integration approach as working in conjunction with the development of a core course in Women’s

212

Healy, “Women’s studies hopes for official committee standing.”

213

Wendy Healy,“Women’s center: Why the burst of enthusiasm?” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 14, 1976.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19760114-01.2.10&srpos=3&e=-01-1976--02-1976-197-

en-20--1--txt-txIN-committee+on+women%27s+studies+----1976--

214

Ibid.

215

Boxer, 682.

216

Becky Elkin,“Faculty proposes coed curriculum as women’s gain popularity,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 25, 1976.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19760225-01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1976--

217

Ibid.

Studies, envisioning a 200-level, multi-professor course that would span a handful of disciplines. Of

course, hopes proclaimed by the committee by no means guaranteed the actuation of their plans.

The early years of activism for women’s studies effected minimal progress; this stagnancy

was abetted by the aforementioned lack of administrative support. Two years after Martin explained

her thoughtful ambitions, various faculty members attested to the “suppression of women’s

studies.”

218

The Committee's hopes of adding more women’s studies courses to Princeton’s

curriculum had not yet been realized, and a March 1978 Princetonian article reported that the English

department still had no courses focused on women’s studies. The department was also entirely

devoid of tenured female professors. Echoing Hanley’s 1975 belief that her interest in women’s

studies had harmed her prospects for reappointment, Assistant English Professor Julia Halloway

reflected on the correlation between teaching women’s studies courses and being denied tenure: "It

has seemed to be hazardous to women faculty members to teach courses on women."

219

Another

instance of lacking administrative support occurred when women in the English department had

their request denied to turn one of the most popular women’s seminars into “an actual course.”

220

While the English department chair blamed a lack of women’s studies courses exclusively on limited

resources, such courses were blatantly not a departmental priority; it would have taken negligible

resources to make official an already-existing seminar.

Despite the uphill nature of their battle, advocates of women’s studies were persistent,

calling for a “Women’s Studies Week,” in November 1978.

221

The Women’s Studies committee

called an open faculty meeting, which “centered around the absence of courses in three major areas:

218

Barbara Barrow, “Women criticize English department for suppression of women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

March 31, 1978. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19780331-01.2.32&srpos=1&e=------

197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-It+has+seemed+to+be+hazardous+to+women+faculty+members+to+teach+courses+on+women------

219

Ibid.

220

Ibid.

221

Nabers Cabaniss, “Feminists request women’s courses, “Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 10, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781110-01.2.18&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1978--

modern literature, especially British and American literature; anthropology, or courses on cross-

cultural views of women; and interdisciplinary courses with a theoretical and methodological

emphasis.”

222

The meeting also raised the tendency for female faculty to leave Princeton, with the

committee blaming the a lack of opportunity for tenure/promotion at Princeton as well as the

curriculum’s inflexible nature. For the majority of the 1970s, it seemed that the complaints of

students and faculty hoping to expand women’s studies fell on deaf ears.

The University had an ready defense available for its failure to expand women’s studies,

repeatedly citing limited resources or limits on the quantity of courses which could be added.

Although challenging to ascertain the degree to which the administration/department heads viewed

women’s studies as valuable, there was at least some truth to the oft-cited limitations. In nearly any

policy decision, financial constraints are a necessary consideration. Barbara Nelson, a faculty

member of the previously-named Wilson School, acknowledged, “There's a limit to the number of

courses which most departments can offer. . . they usually have to kill an old course in order to

institute a new one.”

223

Thus, it was not necessarily that the administration saw the discipline of

women’s studies as illegitimate or unimportant, but rather that other disciplines and goals were

deemed more important.

An additional contributor to administrative hesitancy was that those in favor of women’s

studies were often viewed as inherently political. The male-authored 1978 article referenced above

was entitled “Feminists request women’s courses.” Nowhere do the women advocating for more

women’s-focused courses self-identify as “feminists.” Rather, it is the male author imposing this

politically-charged term upon them. By invoking it, he separates these women from the general

community of Princetonians and politicizes their goals to diversify Princeton’s curriculum. This

222

Ibid.

223

Ibid.

student’s conception of the activists likely indicates more widely-held campus views. As noted in the

introduction, Princeton’s policymaking philosophy does not compel it to be “an instrument of social

change;” when women’s studies was a novel discipline with particularly political connotations, the

administration likely felt most comfortable remaining uninvolved. Of course, there need not be

anything overtly political about Princeton’s female faculty and students desiring courses providing a

woman’s perspective. Their request for a “coeducational” curriculum stood out as extremely

progressive only when viewed against the historical Princetonian backdrop of academics taught from

the exclusively male perspective.

Activism Begets Activism: Martin’s Resignation

In the 1979-1980 academic year, things began picking up for advocates of women’s studies,

but the progress was not without hiccoughs. One noteworthy wrinkle came in the form of Martin’s

October 1979 resignation as chair of the Women’s Studies Committee. Her decision seemed to be a

protest against the University’s consistent lack of support for women’s studies. Martin described the

University’s “continuing charade to the commitment of women”

224

of which she wanted no part.

According to Martin, there was not just a lack of progress for women’s studies occurring at

Princeton but rather a regression: “the number of courses in Women's Studies has declined" along

with "the number of faculty members capable of teaching Women's Studies."

225

Martin described the

“last straw” as being the news that zero women received tenure in the spring of 1979, though eight

had been up for it. The male-authored Princetonian article reporting on the rationale behind Martin’s

resignation repeatedly describes her as a “chairman,” despite Martin being a woman. In 1979,

224

David Grant, “Ruble seeks reversal of tenure decision; Martin resigns as chairman of Women’s Studies program,” Daily Princetonian,

(Princeton, NJ), October 10, 1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791010-

01.2.2&srpos=2&e=-10-1979--11-1979-197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-chairman+women%27s+studies----1979--

225

Ibid.

masculine language was prominent at Princeton, along with the male faculty members and male-

dominated courses.

During this time, various articles lamented the status of Princeton’s academics as male-

dominated. Martin’s activist resignation successfully drew attention to the fight for women’s studies

and the plights of Princeton’s female faculty. One letter to the Princetonian penned by two female

undergraduates conveyed the irony in a Princetonian article’s having announced Martin’s resigning as

chair of a “program” for women’s studies when no such program existed. They highlight the

University’s neglect of women’s studies as a discipline and Princeton’s failure to acknowledge the

Committee’s efforts. The students’ letter concludes with a request for University action: “Like

Martin, we feel the time has come for a sincere university commitment to women's studies at

Princeton.”

226

Another Princetonian article from October, entitled “A long way to go,” lamented

women’s “lack of fair representation in faculty,”

227

revealing the sobering fact that “Only 10 of

Princeton's 358 tenured professors are women.”

228

The article draws attention to the utter lack of

tenured professors interested in women’s studies, claiming that “no women who have joined the

university as junior faculty members and who study women's issues have been tenured.”

229

Keenly

aware of Princeton’s hesitancy towards women’s studies, the author attempts to draw upon

Princeton’s concern with its institutional status and the related acquisition of top applicants as a

means of persuasion. Citing a growing interest in women’s studies among Princeton student and

faculty, the article argues that a women’s studies program had the potential to help draw more

226

Elissa Weinstein and Selma Thompson, “Women’s studies program: No such thing,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October

15, 1979. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791015-01.2.16&srpos=4&e=------197-en-

20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1979--

227

“A long way to go,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 25, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791025-01.2.13&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1979--

228

Ibid.

229

Ibid.

“qualified female academics to Princeton.”

230

Similar rationale would eventually be influential in

earning administrative support.

The Critical Creation of WHEN

In November 1979, the Women’s Center was compelled by the blatant stagnancy of the

women’s studies initiative to create “the Women's Studies, Hiring, and Education Network

(WHEN).” The Women’s Center itself was created in 1971 by female undergraduates as a response

to the “isolating experience” of “being a woman student.”

231

With its creation of WHEN, the center

aimed to address the particular exclusion of female voices within academia. Martin’s resignation and

the related failure of female faculty to obtain tenure likely helped spur the committee’s formation;

the stated objectives of the group were to advocate for a 1) Women’s studies program and 2) more

female Professors. At a WHEN meeting, one student member explained of the group’s aims: “The

present academic offerings at Princeton fail to satisfy the needs of students interested in a feminist

academic perspective. . . it is imperative that women and also male professors sympathetic to

women's studies be tenured.”

232

Nancy J. Weiss (incidentally, the author of Keep the Damned Women

Out, the historical account of coeducation referenced extensively in Chapter 1 of the present

analysis) was present at the meeting. She advocated “making the administration uncomfortable,”

233

as a tactic intended to obtain the long-awaited support for a program in women’s studies at

Princeton. This statement reflects an understanding of Princeton’s policymaking strategy; as

referenced in the present work’s introduction, Goheen expressed a distaste for “political and social

230

Ibid.

231

Bob Musen and Kathy Zeller, “New Women’s Center Initiatives Educational, Cultural Classes,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

November 22, 1971. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19711122-01.2.19&srpos=1&e=---

---197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+center----1971--

232

Elena Kagan, “Women’s Center organizes education group,” The Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 7, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791107-01.2.26&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-

txIN-imperative+that+women+and+also+male+professors+sympathetic+to+women%27s+studies+be+tenured------

233

Ibid.

turmoil”

234

on Princeton’s campus. Weiss appeals to Princeton’s general desire to avoid controversy

or unrest.

Shortly after WHEN’s formation, the group took the initiative to create and release a

proposal for a women’s studies program at Princeton.

235

The introduction presents the student

interest in women’s studies citing “over 200 theses [on women-related topics] in the last six years

alone” as well as “oversubscribed Women’s Studies student initiated seminars.”

236

The introduction

also appeals to the University’s concern with “keeping up” with its Ivy peers, noting that “most

other Ivy League universities have created Women’s Studies Programs.” In its advocacy for a

women’s studies program, the report clarifies that, while implementation of women’s studies into

existing curriculum should be encouraged (i.e., the integration approach), a separate, cohesive

program was still warranted.

Though clearly aimed at convincing the university to support women’s studies, the WHEN

committee does not hesitate to blame Princeton for its inaction. In the section on hiring practice, the

report blatantly concludes that the continuous failure of women’s studies-focused faculty members

to gain tenure has been rooted in discrimination. After citing Princeton’s hiring and tenuring of

female faculty as “the worst in the Ivy League,”

237

it goes on to state, “Princeton’s practices have

been discriminatory.”

238

While administration at Princeton claimed that male and female faculty are

held to equivalent standards when making tenuring decisions,

239

WHEN held otherwise, claiming

that the abysmally low rate of female tenuring at Princeton indicated unequal standards. To

emphasize its point, the report includes a recent example of a female professor denied tenure, Diane

Ruble of the psychology department. The report describes Ruble’s unacknowledged yet influential

234

Goheen, The Human Nature of a University.

235

WHEN? Proposal For: A Women’s Studies Program at Princeton, 1979 in Women’s Center Records, Box 1.

236

Ibid.

237

Ibid.

238

Ibid.

239

Ruxin, “University Adds Women at Junior Faculty Levels.”

research on sex roles, and how she was “denied tenure despite her department’s overwhelming

recommendation.” Ruble’s case anecdotally indicates that, in some cases, Princeton’s

administration, not academic departments themselves, were responsible for the aforementioned

discrimination.

At this point in the history of women’s studies at Princeton, the only explicit act of support

committed by the University was its official (1976) recognition of Princeton’s Committee on

Women’s Studies. Both the establishment of WHEN and its subsequent report advocating for a

Women’s Studies Program were initiatives performed by student and faculty activists outside the

University’s jurisdiction.

Wheels in Motion: Administration Amenable to Women’s Studies for the First Time

WHEN’s persuasive proposal effectively inspired administrative action. In early February

1980, soon after the proposal’s release, Dean of the College Joan S. Girgus organized an Ad Hoc

Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies–comprised of both faculty and students–with the

purpose of “examining women’s studies at Princeton.”

240

Even after roughly a decade of student and

faculty advocating to increase resources devoted women’s studies, it was not until 1980 that the

administration created a committee to investigate whether such requests held merit. A Princetonian

article describes the committee’s creation as “the first concrete step the university has taken to

integrate women's perspectives into the curriculum”

241

since the Women’s Studies Committee was

formed. The administration made clear, however, that a recommendation by the committee to form

a program of women’s studies would not guarantee said creation; multiple layers of approval would

be required from various committees.

240

T Keating Holland, “New committee to investigate expansion of women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February

6,1980. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800206-01.2.3&srpos=7&e=------198-en-20--

1--txt-txIN-ad+hoc+committee+women%27s+studies----1980--

241

Ibid.

The University’s course of action coincided with WHEN’s recommendations to an extent.

For example, students were invited to apply for a place on the ad hoc committee, thereby adding a

student voice to the planning and deliberation process, as advocated by WHEN. On February 22,

1980, seven students–all women–were selected as members of the ad hoc committee.

242

In contrast,

three of the seven faculty members appointed for the committee were men. The faculty portion of

the committee was chosen by Dean of the Faculty Aaron Lemonick and the existing Women’s

Studies Committee. A Princetonian article reporting on the committee members states that, “Four of

the seven faculty members — Davis, Gossman, Keller and Zeitlin — currently serve on the standing

faculty Women's Studies Committee.” The preexisting committee’s role in choosing the members

for this administration-approved committee seemed promising, and Nancy J. Weiss, chair of the new

committee, described its members as “open” and “imaginative.”

243

As the freshly-minted Ad Hoc Committee conducted their investigation, the administration

addressed its evident hesitancy toward women’s studies for the first time via President Bowen’s 1980

Annual Report. In it, he reflected positively on the decision to coeducate Princeton, believing that

doing so had “strengthened the best aspects of Princeton.”

244

When it came to the report’s

discussion of academics, Bowen carefully navigated the topic of women’s studies at Princeton,

undoubtedly keenly aware of the recent controversies surrounding the University’s inaction. He

emphasized a need for caution, portraying the administration’s hesitancy as stemming from

thoughtful prudence as opposed to covert ambivalence towards women. Bowen explained: “As with

any new interdisciplinary approach, the faculty has been concerned to respect traditional disciplines

242

T. Keating Holland, “Panels select women’s studies committee,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), February 25, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800225-01.2.4&srpos=5&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----1980--

243

Ibid.

244

Steve Fitch, “Bowen Releases Annual Report,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 23, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800423-01.2.3&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-bowen+women%27s+studies------

and cautious about launching new programs or creating new organizational entities until it is clear

that they are necessary." Until recently, the administration had not deemed it fit to even attempt to

discern whether a women’s studies program was “necessary,” displaying an excess of caution.

Bowen employs traditionality to defend the University’s reluctance to support women’s studies while

simultaneously praising the groundbreaking development of coeducation, an ironic coupling of

sentiments; when debating whether to admit women, the loudest dissenting voices were primarily

concerned with preserving Princeton’s traditional aspects–namely the masculine culture being

challenged by women’s studies activists.

The report plays the defensive when handling both women’s studies and the low numbers of

tenured female faculty. Bowen describes how efforts have been made to integrate women’s studies

into existing curriculum. He also defends the University against recent critiques of its tenure process,

blaming the low numbers of female professors on the slow-changing nature of faculty composition,

as opposed to on any existence of discriminatory practices. Overall, the report comes across as

extremely pro-women, highlighting the ways in which Princeton has supported its female students

and praising the women of Princeton, ultimately stating that female graduates would “strengthen the

University through their enthusiasm, loyalty and support.”

245

The 1980 report might reasonably be

expected to reflect on the developments of the previous decade, many of which centered around the

advent of female students on campus. However, it is interesting to note the extreme, positive focus

on women, intentionally displaying the degree of Princeton’s support for women in a time rife with

critiques to the contrary. In addition to internal academic complaints Sally Frank made her first

official complaint alleging sexism against Princeton and its Eating Clubs the previous year. Multiple

factors coalesced to render prudent a presidential proclamation that Princeton ardently admired,

respected, and desired the advancement of women.

245

Ibid.

President Bowen (Discreetly) Supports Women’s Studies

While charged with speaking on behalf of Princeton (and Princeton’s actions) as an entire

institution, President Bowen was, to his credit, quite supportive of expanding women’s studies. In a

series of exchanges with Nancy Weiss, head of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s

Studies, Bowen’s personal support for the discipline becomes evident prior to the Ad Hoc

Committee proposal’s approval. In October 1979 (when Weiss served as acting chair of the

Women’s Studies Committee), Weiss sent President Bowen a “Confidential Memorandum on

Women’s Studies at Princeton.” The memorandum expressed that “The Princeton curriculum has

been notably slow to reflect this new scholarship [on women’s studies]”

246

and stressed that it was

“high time to do better than we have done.” She compares the magnitude of course offerings related

to women’s studies at Princeton compared to those at Yale and Harvard, revealing Princeton to be

lackluster. Ultimately, the memorandum stops short of advocating for a women’s studies program,

instead recommending “the creation of a new faculty position to be filled by someone who studies

women,” the establishment of incentives for departments to fill a vacancy with someone

academically versed in women’s studies, and provision of “release time” for faculty to “work up a

new course on women.” In response, Bowen commends the nature of the memorandum itself

(calling it “crisp, informative and stimulating”) yet fails to voice a personal opinion on the merits of

women’s studies, instead expressing reservations regarding funding. While not yet a decided

supporter, Bowen’s response seems amenable to assisting Weiss; he pledges to distribute copies of

the memorandum to other administrators and promises to request that the Dean of the Faculty “see

what might be done.”

247

246

Nancy Weiss, Confidential Memorandum on Women’s Studies at Princeton. October 2, 1979, Office of the President, Box 47,

Folder 3

247

Ibid.

By the following year Bowen’s outward supportive stance on the issue appeared solidified. In

June 1980, Nancy Weiss again sent President Bowen a confidential memorandum, the chief purpose

of which was to reiterate recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee. In May, the

Committee strongly recommended the creation of a certificate program in women’s studies at

Princeton. In her June memorandum, Weiss wrote: “You may take that report as the expression of

my hopes for women’s studies at Princeton; it more than encapsulates everything I would ordinarily

say in this memorandum.”

248

Bowen’s response to Weiss was unequivocally enthusiastic: “As you

know, I am a strong supporter of what you recommend, and you can be sure that I shall do all in my

power to mobilize the necessary support from all quarters.”

249

In summary, while some faculty and administrators may have felt differently, President

Bowen himself, saw distinct value in women’s studies (or at least in the creation of a women’s

studies program at Princeton). However, as Bowen was charged with representing the University, his

personal opinions may not have been evident in his public addresses. Following his promise to do

“all in his power” to support Weiss’s endeavors in his letter, Bowen quipped “At the same time, as

both of us recognize, nothing is settled by dictate at Princeton. Fortunately!”

250

Though his annual

report may have been diplomatic and slightly impassive, his correspondence with Weiss revealed his

true stance. The development of Bowen’s support for women’s studies was likely influential in the

administration’s creation of the Ad Hoc committee in the first place, which, in turn, proved

instrumental to the program’s eventual establishment. As discussed in Chapter 1, Bowen was a

strong voice in favor of coeducation during his time as University Provost. Given his history of

248

Nancy Weiss, Confidential Memorandum on Women’s Studies at Princeton, June 30, 1980 in Office of the President Records;

William G. Bowen Box 47, Folder 3.

249

William G. Bowen to Nancy Weiss, July 11, 1980 iin Office of the President Records; William G. Bowen, Box 47, Folder 3.

250

Ibid.

proactive thinking about Princeton’s role as an academic leader, his (partially behind-the-scenes) role

as a strong supporter of women’s studies does not come as a shock.

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies Pens a Persuasive Essay

The report released by the Ad Hoc Committee aimed to persuade the administration of the

desirability of creating a women’s studies program. Released in May 1980, “Report of the Ad Hoc

Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies”

251

presented the committee’s findings and

recommendations.

The Committee comes down strongly in favor of founding a women’s studies program at

Princeton, concluding its introductory paragraphs with the unwavering statement that “We believe

that women’s studies should be an integral part of a Princeton education in the 1980s.”

252

The report describes the methodology used to arrive at its recommendations, which included

gathering “undergraduate, graduate student, and faculty views” and surveying the structure/content

of women’s studies programs at other institutions.

The primary, overarching recommendations of the Committee as highlighted by the report

are as follows: 1) A certificate program (i.e., a minor) should be established in women’s studies, 2)

Departments should “be given specific incentives to establish courses which focus especially on. . .

women” and 3) Students and faculty research in women’s studies should be promoted.

The Committee’s report apparently has two overarching aims, with the first being to

describe in detail its recommendations and the second being to present said recommendations in a

persuasive, attractive manner. It follows logically that, once the committee members themselves

became convinced of the desirability inherent in Princeton’s expansion of women’s studies, the

Committee was incentivized to present this finding in a manner persuasive to Princeton. A

251

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies, Princeton University, May 1980, Office of the President,

Box 47, Folder 4.

252

Ibid.

substantial proportion of the committee likely commenced the investigation process already

dedicated to the creation of a women’s studies program at Princeton (particularly those members

who participated in the preexisting committee on women’s studies). Throughout the report, modes

of persuasive framing and lines of reasoning likely to appeal to the administration appear.

The Committee argues for women’s studies’ scholastic importance and validity, emphasizing

that, “perhaps most important, new scholarship about women is transforming categories of

understanding and methods of inquiry in established disciplines.”

253

By citing this particular feature

of women’s studies as most important, the Committee appeals to Princeton’s appreciation for

tradition and continuity. By linking women’s studies to “established disciplines,” the Report frames

the expansion of women’s studies as a natural extension of Princeton’s high-caliber systems of

academic inquiry. In his annual report, Bowen explained the importance of “respecting traditional

disciplines” before “launching” into new academic waters;

254

the Committee’s report responds to the

University’s expressed wariness by showing that the creation of a woman’s studies program need not

conflict with values of traditionality.

In addition to grounding the value of women’s studies in previously-established disciplines,

the Committee anticipates and rebuts depictions of women’s studies as a merely passing or “trendy,”

phenomenon, asserting “Enough time has elapsed to demonstrate that women’s studies is not

simply a fad of the moment.”

255

Generally, the report appears deeply concerned with defending the

solid legitimacy of women’s studies, as the discipline faced skeptics in that regard. As discussed

earlier, female faculty denied tenure at Princeton in the 1970s frequently attributed their denial to an

253

Ibid., 4.

254

Fitch, “Bowen Releases Annual Report.”

255

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies, 9.

interest in women’s studies, citing an administrative failure to recognize the discipline as legitimate

and valuable.

256

The report also details the progression of women’s studies nationally, noting the

proliferation in programs across the United States, In addition to stating these facts, the report takes

pains to emphasize Princeton as lagging behind in outwardly valuing women’s studies. In the

“Background” portion, the report describes the noteworthy expansion of women’s studies: “The

new scholarship in women’s studies. . . has led to the creation of thousands of new courses in

colleges and universities across the country, and more than 300 undergraduate women’s studies

programs.”

257

It then goes on to, by name, highlight a particular selection of elite institutions with

these programs that might be considered “peers” of Princeton, including schools in the Ivy League.

The Committee then emphasizes the desirability of these national trends. Per the report’s rationale,

these schools did not choose to institute women’s studies programs because doing so became

popular; rather, the choice to embrace women’s studies became the norm among elite institutions

because it was a prudent academic decision. It states: “Increasingly, educational institutions are

recognizing the importance of the incorporation of women's studies into a modern undergraduate

curriculum.” The invocation of the word “modern,” suggests that Princeton’s failure to value

women’s studies could be seen as antiquated. Though Princeton does not desire to appear “trendy,”

it certainly would not want to fall behind its peers, given its established status concerns.

The report directly contrasts the way in which myriad institutions had “recognized the

importance” of creating women’s studies programs with Princeton’s inaction, illustrating

Princeton’s comparative inadequacy: “Over the past decade, only a handful of women’s studies

courses have been offered at Princeton. . . most have been one-time-only or irregular offerings.”

258

256

Ibid.

257

Ibid., 6.

258

Ibid., 7.

100

In an admonishing tone, the report’s recommendations reiterate Princeton’s shortcoming:

“Compared with other Ivy League institutions, Princeton has been slow to incorporate courses on

women and gender into its undergraduate curriculum.”

259

Though the Committee may seem intent

on shaming Princeton into action, the Report balances this tactic with a smattering of praise.

After deeming it “auspicious for Princeton to move forward in women’s studies,” the report

paints Princeton as an ideal home to a strong, enviable women's studies program, noting, “Princeton

starts from a base of a . . . growing core of senior faculty. . . whose scholarship and teaching centers

in part or in the main on questions relating to gender and sex roles–a matter of envy at Harvard and

Yale”

260

[emphasis added]. The Ivy League are notorious for competing against one another for

academic prestige, a fact rendered salient by Princeton’s unwavering determination to admit women

before Yale. This line of persuasion draws on that competitive impulse as if to reassure Princeton,

“We may be lagging behind right now, but don’t worry–we can still overtake them!”

Practically speaking, participants in the proposed certificate program would complete an

introductory course to women’s studies, the program’s junior seminars, a senior thesis colloquium,

and three elective courses in women’s studies. Additionally, though participants would enroll in a

departmental major separately from women’s studies, their thesis would necessarily relate to

women’s studies. The proposed program would be governed by “an interdepartmental program

committee” which would consult with a student committee.

An additional logistical portion of report concerns hiring practices and how the University

might acquire faculty for a Women’s Studies Program. Without critiquing Princeton, the report

advised: “One way to increase the number of departmental offerings which focus especially on

women and gender is to hire and tenure additional faculty whose own research and teaching centers

259

Ibid., 14

260

Ibid., 8

101

in part in women’s studies.”

261

Previously, the University received criticism for failure to tenure

female professors, but administration defended the sparseness of tenured women as arising from

limited resources. The report acknowledges the genuine limits on hiring and focuses on proactive

approaches to the staffing of a women’s studies program: “In this time of tight constraints on

faculty hiring. . . departments should be encouraged to consider ways in which vacancies can be used

to meet multiple teaching needs -- for example, by hiring a faculty member who can teach a national

history and women’s history. . .” Though the report deprecates Princeton for its slow progress, it

stops short of antagonistically accusing Princeton of sexism.

After detailing what the Princeton program might look like in practice, the report proposes a

timetable which would allow the women’s studies program to be “fully operational” in the 1982-83

academic year.

262

With the Committee on record as strongly in favor of a Women’s Studies Program,

it would be up to faculty whether to set the wheels of its development in motion.

Proposal Gains Approval Despite Male Objectors

Though the report’s concluding sentences called for the faculty’s approval, specifically, this

vastly simplified the proposal’s approval process. As detailed by a Princetonian article, the proposal’s

passage would require approval by the Humanities Council, the faculty Committee on Course of

Study and, finally, the entire faculty.”

263

The first stage went off without a hitch, with the Council of

Humanities (comprised of faculty members of various departments of humanities) unanimously

approving the proposed program in October 1980. As described by a Princetonian article from the

early 1960s, the Council’s responsibilities included overseeing “the university's several

interdepartmental and interdivisional programs in humanities” and aiding in developing “of new

261

Ibid., 15.

262

Ibid., 32.

263

Michael Tyler, “Report recommends creation of women’s studies program,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 23, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800523-01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Women%27s+Studies+Hiring+and+Education+Network+%28WHEN%29----1980--

102

courses and of studies.”

264

The Council’s chair, Professor Edward D. Sullivan “said [the program’s]

reception by the Council was ‘enthusiastic.’”

265

The next phase of approval, however, did not go as smoothly. Though the Committee on

Course of Study considered the proposal at their November 1980 meeting, they were “unable to

come to a vote”

266

after a lengthy meeting. The failure to vote at the meeting indicates some degree

of division amongst the Committee on Course of Study and shows that the overwhelmingly positive

support of the Humanities Council was not necessarily representative of the entire faculty’s views.

At the Committee’s next meeting a vote was held, resulting in the Council’s official approval of the

proposal. Next, the Committee turned to further developing “details of the program” which would

then be presented to the faculty for their approval.

267

On January 5, 1981, the faculty-wide vote, dubbed the “final hurdle” by the Princetonian, to

determine the future of a women’s Studies Program was held. The author also argues that “the

university ought to recognize the legitimacy of women's studies irrespective of student demand.”

268

The faculty voted in favor of the proposal, approving the women’s studies program “to become an

official part of the university curriculum” beginning in the 1981-82 academic year.

269

Though not

264

“Humanities Group Gains Six Fellows,” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, May 29, 1963.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19630529-01.2.9&srpos=4&e=------196-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-the+council+of+humanities------

265

Doug Schwartz, “Humanities council approves program for women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 24,

1980. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801024-01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--

txt-txIN-humanities+council+women%27s+studies----1980--

266

Doug Schwartz, “Committee fails to take Women’s Studies Vote,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 26, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801126-01.2.4&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1980--

267

Doug Schwartz, “Course of study panel okays women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), December 11, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801211-01.2.3&srpos=9&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1980--

268

‘The Final Hurdle,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), January 5, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810105-01.2.17&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----1981--

269

Doug Schwartz, “Faculty unit approves women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, January, 7 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810107-01.2.2&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-women%27s+studies+faculty+----1981--

103

passed unanimously, the faculty were overwhelmingly in favor, with only two contrarian voters. At

this stage, the University began searching in earnest for a program Head.

Though the long-awaited women’s studies program was on track to become reality, its

creation was not without skeptics. At the faculty vote, Sociology professor Marion J. Levy was an

outspoken dissenter, arguing for a purely integration-based approach to women's studies in lieu of

the creation of a separate program. Levy argued that the proposed program would “ghettoize”

women’s studies and make it less likely that faculty would separately include women’s studies in their

courses.

270

Another faculty dissenter, comparative literature professor Robert B. Hollander, believed

that the women’s study’s program would not present women’s studies itself in an “objective”

manner.” Though not explicitly stated, Hollander likely fretted that the program would push a

“feminist,” activist-oriented agenda in its construal of the discipline. Although neither male faculty

member framed their contentions as being opposed to the discipline itself, one must wonder if

dissenters might have fundamentally taken issue with women’s studies being explicitly lauded by

Princeton as legitimate.

Other dissenters were explicit in their distaste for the discipline. A 1981 Princetonian article

detailed editor Robert Royal of Prospect magazine’s concern that a women’s studies program would

prove to be “feminist” in nature rather than academically “respectable”

271

(two attributes which,

apparently, could not conceivably coincide). Royal, who believed women’s studies would prove

overly political, fretted that the program would become “a forum for advocacy for feminism rather

than an academic discipline.”

272

He went on to say, “The impression I get. . . is that the people who

are most involved in the academic program are largely in one camp about women's issues. It appears

270

Ibid.

271

Doug Schwartz, “Women’s studies plan: Hard fight, smooth win,” The Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), April 9, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810409-01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-women%27s+studies----1981--

272

Ibid.

104

that it's going to be scholarship in the service of a particular point of view."

273

Royal’s worry appears

strikingly parallel to those expressed by Professor Hollander, the main difference being that Royal

articulated the type of one-sided, subjective view he believed the program would perpetrate (i.e.,

feminist), whereas Hollander refrained from explicitly verbalizing his concerns.

Though Hollander skirted around worries about an overly “liberal” program, a particularly

unabashed critic, Rockwell Townsend ’41, minced no words. In August of 1981, shortly before the

fall 1981 advent of the program he wrote, “I CAN ONLY FEEL THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE

THAT PRINCETON HAS CHOSEN TO FOLLOW THE HERD IN ESTABLISHING SUCH

A FRIVOLOUS AND TRENDY ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE.”

274

The Ad Hoc Committee on the

Future of Women’s studies had anticipated such protestations, taking care in their report to

characterize women’s studies as a stable discipline, not a “trendy” passing fad. Yet, Townsend’s

personal disapproval of the discipline, caused him to feel that Princeton’s choice to create a program

could only reflect a sheeplike mentality. His letter contrasts “frivolous” women's studies with the

University’s tradition of promoting “the rigorous pursuit of knowledge,” portraying women and

their viewpoints as fundamentally incongruous with legitimate, worthwhile academia. (Undeniably,

the word “frivolous” bears a feminine connotation while “rigorous” connotes masculinity. Though

Townsend’s letter opposes women’s studies, it is certainly reminiscent of the various alumni letters

written in opposition to women studying at Princeton in the 1960s.)

The Ad Hoc Committee foresaw the potential for alumni to fret about the loss of

traditionality (as they did with the initial admission of women), prompting them to frame women’s

studies as a natural extension of traditional disciplines, not as a “feminist” novelty. Though less of a

273

The likes of Royal were clearly suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the very problem which Women’s

Studies sought to address–the fact that existing academia tended to be “one-sided” from the male point of view.

274

Rockwell Townsend to President Bowen., August 18, 1981 in Office of the President Records: William G. Bowen, Box 47, Folder

105

conspicuous consideration than in coeducation, the Committee was certainly aware of Princeton’s

commitment to appeasing alumni. Townsend’s letter lauds Princeton’s tradition and history,

lamenting that “NO VOICES AROSE TO GIVE DEFINITION TO THE UNIVERSITY’S

HISTORICAL MISSION,” leaving Princeton vulnerable to “THE FEMINIST ARGUMENT” for

a women’s studies program. Also of note, Rockwell’s negative employment of the term “feminist”

harkens back to the previously discussed Princetonian article, wherein the author dismissively dubbed

women’s studies advocates “feminists.”

275

Longstanding beliefs that women (and the study of

women) were less academically legitimate than men still permeated the worldviews of many. In

pushing for establishment of a women’s studies program, the Ad Hoc Committee attended to the

existence of such enduring views, framing women’s studies as rigorous, legitimate, apolitical, and

arising from established disciplines. Their skillful, persuasive framing facilitated the proposal’s

success.

Suspicions Regarding Princeton’s Change of Heart

Certain supporters of women’s studies at Princeton were skeptical of the reasons which

drove Princeton’s administration to finally get behind women’s studies. When interviewed, ex-chair

of the Women’s Studies Committee Janet Martin blamed University embarrassment: "I think

embarrassment was behind [the turnaround]. The figures for hiring of women faculty were very bad.

It behooved the administration to show some response, some sensitivity toward recognizing women

on the campus. They chose women's studies."

276

As seen throughout the present chapter’s analysis, the issue of seemingly misogynistic hiring

practices was often intertwined with advocacy for women’s studies. Martin argued–somewhat

cynically– that Princeton disputed general allegations of being sexist by creating a program which

275

Cabaniss, “Feminists request women’s courses.”

276

Doug Schwartz, “Women’s studies plan: Hard fight, smooth win.”

106

would make externally salient Princeton’s appreciation of women. Interestingly, Martin would

returned to campus the following “. . . September to find that [she was] not [a member] of the new

program.”

277

Martin seemed a bit offended at what was portrayed as an oversight, sharing: "I don't

recall being asked for my advice, and that I wasn't informed after the fact seems to me very

improper.” Though the changes were characterized as required to “fit the specifications of the new

program,”

278

comments made by Martin the previous spring depicting the University negatively may

have contributed to her removal.

Others argued that, while still a tactical move, Princeton’s decision to join other elite

Universities who had women’s studies programs was compelled primarily by the competitive desire

to retain applicants. One student member of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s

Studies, Annette Lamoreaux, explained Princeton’s shift to supporting women’s studies in the

following manner: “I wouldn't say that the administration and faculty support was sudden. There

was a growing interest in women's studies in academia for quite a while. The administration began to

see the handwriting on the wall, since it was losing faculty and students to universities which had the

program."

279

When weighing the influence of factors behind the eventual passage of policy for a women’s

studies program, the steps which came after the administration’s formation of an Ad Hoc committee

are of equal importance. Faculty could have failed to pass the program proposal created by the Ad

Hoc; according to a Princetonian author, “Only a little over a year ago, Weiss, Martin, and a few

others would have been the few voices of assent.”

280

The proposal’s arguments likely played a key

role in convincing faculty. For example, both faculty and administration have an interest in keeping

277

Terry McGarry, “New Women’s Studies Head Still Sought,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), October 6, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19811006-01.2.4&srpos=3&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----1981--

278

Ibid.

279

Doug Schwartz, “Women’s studies plan: Hard fight, smooth win.”

280

Ibid.

107

Princeton competitive with other prestigious institutions academically. Additionally, more traditional

faculty might have been particularly swayed by the proposal’s framing of women’s studies as a

natural extension of core academic disciplines. Of course, the faculty’s approval could suggest a

genuine shift in faculty opinion toward the value and legitimacy of women’s studies, distinct from

that generated by the proposal. It could also indicate deference to the policy move seemingly

favored by administration (the administration's decision to form a committee having indicated their

pro-program stance). Likely, a combination of all the above factors came together to push

Princeton, as a democratic institution, to welcome women’s studies as a discipline.

The Incomplete Evolution of Women’s Studies at Princeton

The fall of 1981 dawned with the program still in search of a head. For the duration of the

program’s first year, Nancy J. Weiss served as the acting director. In November 1981, the Board of

Trustees approved the first official director of the women’s studies program, Kay B. Warren ‘70.

Warren was teaching Anthropology at the women’s college Mount Holyoke at the time.

281

She paid

her first visit to Princeton’s campus in April of 1982 and assumed her post officially in the fall of the

1982-83 academic year.

282

Ultimately, the conviction of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies that

the discipline would not be a passing trend proved true. In 1986, Princeton’s program received a

1.25-million-dollar donation from the Doris Stevens Foundation to establish an additional

professorship in the program. Of the donation, President Bowen shared, “This professorship is

especially gratifying, because it signals Princeton’s growing importance as a national center for

281

Stona J. Fitch, “Trustees okay Warren to head women’s studies,” The Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 2, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19811102-01.2.6&srpos=6&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+----1981--

282

Crystal Nix, “Women’s Studies head visits campus,” The Daily Princetonian, (Prineton, NJ), April 6, 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820406-01.2.5&srpos=1&e=-02-1982--04-1982-198-

en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies----1982--

108

teaching and research in women’s studies.”

283

At one time hesitant to join its peers in the discipline,

women’s studies was sufficiently established as a respectable discipline so as to warrant Princeton’s

pride in being a leader of women’s studies in 1986. Bowen’s comment again gestures toward

Princeton’s overarching goal to be recognized as a high-status, leading institution. The Ad Hoc

Committee’s report foresaw the potential for Princeton to take pride in the discipline, having

explicitly referenced other Ivies’ envy toward Princeton’s faculty in women’s studies.

In 1999, the program adopted the official name “the Program in the Study of Women and

Gender,” as opposed to The Program in Women’s Studies. In 2010, it underwent a more substantial

name change, dropping the term “women” altogether. At this time, Program Director Jill Dolan

crafted a proposal in favor of “the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies” becoming the

program’s new title. She explained that “an additive approach to our name will never be sufficient

but will always exclude identities, politics and practices that we in fact do address in our scholarship

and teaching.”

284

Faculty comprising the program voted unanimously to pass Dolan’s proposal in

December 2010.

The breadth of the women’s studies program has expanded since its founding. For the first

time in 2020, a man was elected to head what is today called the Program in Gender and Sexuality

Studies (GSS). Wallace D. Best, professor of religions and African American Studies, continues to

hold the director position today (Spring 2023). A Princeton Alumni Weekly article described how the

program has evolved and broadened since its conception: “Back then courses covered topics such as

the status of women in Islam and female French novelists, while today they include gender and

283

Christopher Lu, “Women’s Studies to endow chair with $1.25m donation,” The Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), May 14, 1986.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19860514-01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-

txIN-bowen+women%27s+studies------

284

Brettellen Keeler, “Faculty approves name change to gender program at monthly meeting,” The Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ),

December 7, 2010. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian20101207-01.2.7&srpos=2&e=------

201-en-20--1--txt-txIN-gender+and+sexuality+studies+------

109

sexuality in relation to culture, politics, and theater.”

285

Over time, the program has become less

about elevating the perspectives of women specifically and more about exploring and uplifting a

variety of gender and sexual identities frequently neglected in mainstream academia.

Yet, Princeton’s department has failed to progress from merely certificate-granting to

concentration-allowing (concentration being Princeton’s term for a major). The Alumni Weekly

article noted that “Princeton differs from many of its peers”

286

in this regard. In fact, the same year

that Princeton received a sizeable donation and boasted its “importance as a national center for. . .

women’s studies”

287

Harvard voted to establish a degree-granting program in women’s studies, allowing

students to major (as opposed to just minor) in the discipline.

288

37 years later, Princeton has yet to

do the same. Expanding a department to a major would entail the acquisition of additional full-time

faculty and be no small financial feat. Though Princeton may not have this policy initiative in its

immediate plans, the policy tale of Princeton’s women’s studies program has shown that a new era

of activists could change that.

285

Carlett Spike, “Former Women’s Studies Program Evolves with Male Director,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, December 2020.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/former-womens-studies-program-evolves-male-director

286

Ibid.

287

Christopher Lu. “Women’s Studies to Endow Chair with $1.25m Donation.”

288

Robert Wessling, “Harvard faculty approves major in women’s studies,” Daily Princetonian, (Princeton, NJ), November 19, 1986.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19861119-01.2.21&srpos=1&e=-06-1986--12-1990--en-

20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies+program+------

110

CONCLUSION

Where We Have Been

The previous chapters have delineated a progression of women’s policy developments at

Princeton. At the outset, female students were barred from the ivy-covered realm beyond the

Nassau gates. The advent of coeducation saw the first substantial group of women allowed inside

Princeton’s colloquially-termed “orange bubble.” These first women, dubbed “pioneers,” composed

a tiny minority of the student body and were often made to feel like intruders in what had for so

long been a man’s academic world. Even as the numbers of Princetonian women increased, aspects

of its social world remained overwhelmingly masculine. With time, legal advocacy, and one woman’s

unwavering determination, the last concrete social barriers fell as all Princeton Eating Clubs became

legally mandated to admit women. As Sally Frank fought for women’s social equality at Princeton,

another war was afoot; student and faculty activists argued that women had long been excluded

from traditional academic narratives, advocating for the expansion of women’s studies. With the

eventual acquisition of administrative support and subsequent formation of a women’s studies

program, Princeton outwardly recognized the academic perspectives of women as important and

valid.

Behind the scenes of each of these pro-women developments, administrators were carefully

weighing priorities, wishing to adopt policies which elevated Princeton’s status as an admirable

academic leader, yet loathe to endanger their male alumni support with policy changes that could be

deemed too novel or too political.

In each of the three policy situations analyzed in the present work, Princeton took a risk-

averse, middle road, adopting policies sufficiently progressive and academically-enhancing so as to

preserve its top-tier institutional status, yet sufficiently moderate so as to avoid making

overwhelming political statements or disgruntling alumni. In the first chapter, we saw how Princeton

111

was compelled to become coeducational by a desire to attract high-quality male applicants (and to

admit women before Yale). Yet, we also saw administrators’ careful monitoring of the alumni

response to the proposal of coeducation (as it constituted a drastic departure from the supremely

masculine Princeton that alumni living the 1960s had known). Ultimately, Princeton took the plunge

necessary for retention of its elevated academic status and became coeducational, believing that

support for coeducation among younger alumni would keep their funding afloat. Administrators also

instituted quotas as a conciliatory measure for older alumni, guaranteeing that the quantity of men in

each class would not be decreased by coeducation.

In the second chapter, Princeton’s careful, guarded response strategy to charges of

discrimination against its eating clubs reflected its risk-averse policymaking strategy. Princeton only

took the potentially inflammatory action of speaking out against its own clubs when their failure in

the lawsuit was imminent and when Princeton’s reputation would certainly suffer from remaining

silent. Though pushed by public legal circumstances to do so, Princeton’s eventually proclaimed

devotion to furthering equality and preventing discrimination was a significant development arising

from Sally Frank’s activism.

The third chapter demonstrated an instance of Princeton failing to proactively further the

egalitarian, academic interests of its female students when doing so would potentially be politically

controversial. Ultimately, Princeton was willing to create a women’s studies program only when

most of its peers had already done so. At this point, the program’s establishment no longer ran the

risk of appearing as an overtly political statement, and Princeton ran the risk of appearing

insufficiently progressive. Even in the present day, Princeton has not taken steps to convert its

Gender and Sexuality Studies program into a major.

112

Where We Are Now

The present analysis of policy developments only reached as recent as 1991, the year during

which the Eating Clubs’ admittance of women was legally mandated. In the three decades since,

Princeton has continued to progress in a progressive direction (not only with regards to women but

also more generally), evidenced by increasingly diverse administrative leadership and progressive

policies. In 2001, Shirley M. Tilghman became Princeton’s first female president, presiding over

particularly progressive policy initiatives during her time as president (2001-2013). In 2009, President

Tilghman created the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership, compelled by

“disparities between men and women in visible positions of campus leadership”

289

and concern that

women were “winning fewer academic prizes and postgraduate fellowships than men.”

290

The

report, released in 2011, offers recommendations for increasing female leadership, also openly

acknowledging the enduring existence of negative stereotypes toward female leaders at Princeton,

stating, “female and male undergraduates need to take leadership in addressing the stale, old-fashioned stereotypes

about gendered behavior that retain too much power in Princeton’s campus social life. . . These stereotypes are

deeply rooted in our culture.”

291

It may seem discouraging that Princeton’s problematically male-

dominated nature, discussed at length in the present analysis, was stated to still be prominent in

2011. However, the fact that an administrative committee acknowledged these stereotypes as real

and in need of change (not just for Princeton’s reputation as progressive but for the academic

experience of its students), illustrates a positive movement in administrative priorities.

289

“Report of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership, Princeton University,” (March 2011.)

http://wayback.archive-

it.org/5151/20171216175914/https://www.princeton.edu/reports/2011/leadership/documents/SCUWL_Report_Final.pdf

290

Ibid.

291

Ibid., 97.

113

Also under Tilghman’s leadership, a Trustee Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity investigated

first, how a diverse community enhances learning and, second, how Princeton could better attract

people from diverse backgrounds, with a focus on women and people of color.

292

The first question suggests that Princeton is attending to the inherent value of diversity, as opposed

to promoting diversity just because it has become socially popular/respected to do so. The report

states that “Diversity is not an end in itself but, rather, a precondition for academic excellence,

institutional relevance, and national vitality.”

293

Though there is likely a reputational component at

play, it is clear that Princeton also wishes to enhance diversity for its social and academic benefits.

As society itself becomes more progressive, the policies which genuinely enhance Princeton as an

institution will more often also foster the societally-esteemed educational image for which Princeton

strives.

Corroborating this point, six years after the release of the Ad Hoc Committee’s

recommendations, Princeton received the 2019 Higher Education Excellence in Diversity (HEED)

Award, proudly announced by the Office of Communications in October 2019.

294

The fact that

Princeton can receive status-enhancing recognition for beneficially progressive policies is promising

for the prospects for such policies’ implementation. The many progressive, pro-women and pro-

diversity strides made under President Tilghman and in the wake of her leadership also suggest a

positive domino effect in which diverse leadership begets the pursuit of more diversity.

Where We Could Go

Princeton’s trend toward pursuing more progressive, diversity-promoting policies in recent

years also suggests that tensions between alumni views and Princetonian policy change have lessened

292

“Report of the Trustee Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity,” Princeton University, (September 2013). http://wayback.archive-

it.org/5151/20180103110239/http://www.princeton.edu/reports/2013/diversity/report/PU-report-on-diversity.pdf

293

Ibid., 7.

294

Emily Aronson, Office of Communications, “Princeton Receives National Award for Outstanding Commitments to Diversity

Inclusion,” Princeton University, October 15, 2019. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/10/15/princeton-receives-national-

award-outstanding-commitments-diversity-and-inclusion

114

with time. This has likely occurred naturally, both due to changing societal views and to growing

numbers of alumni who experienced a coeducational, increasingly diverse version of Princeton (and

thus, lack strong ties to antiquated conceptions of Princetonian traditionality). In general,

Princeton’s student body has become more liberal, with a January 2023 Princeton Alumni Weekly

study finding that “Around two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, it seems, the political

makeup of Princeton’s student body began to veer leftward”

295

and continued on this trend since;

according to the article, 86% of Princeton students voted for Joe Biden in 2020. All this is not to say

that individuals with conservative political views would necessarily oppose fundamental policy

change at Princeton. It is generally true, however, that recent policies seeking to uplift women and

people of color on Princeton’s campus have coincided with liberal ideologies and goals.

That being said, it is likely true that Princeton will never desire a reputation as a trendsetting

or “political” institution. Goheen’s claim that a university should not be a “direct instrument of

social struggle”

296

has endured since his Presidency and will likely continue to do so. Princeton is

proud of its longstanding caliber, something also unlikely to change. In the aforementioned Alumni

Weekly article on declining conservatism, the (alumni) author Deavid Walter argued, “Yes, Princeton

now has more racial diversity than it used to, as well as improved financial aid. But through it all,

Princeton has remained unshakably committed to defending its existence as an elite, private

university. That’s conservative!” He claims that, though Princeton may have more students and

leaders with liberal political beliefs, Princeton continues to be “conservative” in its maintenance of

some traditional aspects.

I argue, though, that an increasingly diverse, liberal student body can have a more disruptive

impact on Princeton’s enduring “conservatism” than David Walter ‘11 seems to think. The present

295

David Walter, “Crashing the Conservative Party,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, January 2023.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/crashing-conservative-party

296

Goheen, The Human Nature of a University.

115

analysis has illustrated the power of the people who constitute the university–in this case, women–to

effect institutional progress. Princeton needed only to let women in the door for these women to

successfully decrease social discrimination on campus and increase academic equity for women.

Princeton’s policymaking philosophy may never seek to create fundamental social change, always

erring on the side of risk aversion. Yet, passionate students and faculty can nudge Princeton’s

cautious hand. Princeton is not in the business of intentionally allowing its students to dictate policy

moves, and yet, the present work stands testament to the fact that students with resilience and

determination can sometimes do just that.

116

Bibliography

“1940 Selects Welch Popular Professor: Phi Beta Kappa, Varsity P, and “Prince” Rated in that

Order by Vote of Senior Class.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 27, 1940.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19400427-

01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-

1940+Selects+Welch+Popular+Professor------

Agee, William. “‘No’ Vote at Quad Kills CURL.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November

6, 1981. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian1981

1106-01.2.2&srpos=3&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-CURL+eating+clubs------

“Applauding Decision: Clubs Must Take Initiative.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, September 13,

1990.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19900913-

01.2.19&srpos=3&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-txIN-supreme+court+ivy+tiger+june----1990--

Aronson, Emily, Office of Communications. “Princeton Receives National Award for Outstanding

Commitments to Diversity Inclusion.” Princeton University, October 15, 2019.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2019/10/15/princeton-receives-national-award-

outstanding-commitments-diversity-and-inclusion

Atatimur, Sara. “Bicker Goes to Court.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 4, 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820204-

01.2.17&srpos=3&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank----1982--

Balestri, Carlo H. “25 Years of Coeducation Breaking Down Barriers: The First 4 Years.”

Barrow, Barbara. “Women criticize English department for suppression of women’s studies.” 31

March 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19780331-

01.2.32&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

It+has+seemed+to+be+hazardous+to+women+faculty+members+to+teach+courses+on

+women------

Bary, Andrew. “Frank’s Claim Denied.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, January 13, 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820113-

01.2.2&srpos=7&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank----1982--

Bernstein, Steven. “Ivy Celebrates 100th Anniversary as First Eating Club on the ‘Street.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, 8 February 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790208-

01.2.6&srpos=8&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-history+of+eating+clubs------

Bibbins, Kirsten, Anne Chiang, and Heather Stephenson. Women Reflect About Princeton. Princeton:

The Office of Communications/Publications, 1989.

Bowen, William G.. 11 July 1980. Office of the President Records; William G. Bowen, Box 47,

Folder 3.

117

Bowen, William G. William G. Bowen to Gardner Patterson, February 19, 1967, Committee on the

Education of Women at Princeton Records, Box 1, Folder 3.

Bowen, William G. William G. Bowen to John A. O’Brien, July 21,1987, Office of the Dean of

Undergraduate Student Records, Box 43: Series 2: Student Activities and Organizations

Boxer, Marilyn J., “For and About Women: The Theory and Practice of Women’s Studies in the

United States,” Spring 1982.

Bressler, M. Report of the Committee on the Future of the College. Princeton: Princeton University Press.,

1973. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x1cc1

Cabaniss, Nabers. “Feminists request women’s courses.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November

10, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781110-

01.2.18&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+-

---1978--

Cabaniss, Nabers. “Feminists request women’s courses.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November

10, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781110-

01.2.18&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+-

---1978--

Campi, Al. “Cap, Quad, Tower Vote to Allow Coeds in Bicker.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

December 11, 1970.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19701211-

01.2.2&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-tower+admit+women------

Campi, Al.“Five Clubs to Accept Women.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, December 4

1970.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19701204-

01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-eating+club+critical+language+------

“Coeducation: History of Women at Princeton University.” Princeton University Library.

https://libguides.princeton.edu/c.php?g=84581&p=543232

“Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life: Second Interim Report.” Princeton University,

December 1978 in Office of the President Records: William G. Bowen, Box 360, Folder 6.

Crawford, James L. The University Cottage Club, Princeton, New Jersey, January 8, 1986, in Office

of the Dean of Undergraduate Students Records, Box 43.

“CURL Plan Endorsed.” Town Topics, Princeton, NJ, October 24, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19791024-

01.2.29&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-trustees+endorse+CURL------

“The Curl Report.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, December 13, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781213-

01.2.20&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-bowen+CURL----1978--

118

“Dean Clarifies Official Policy of Grad School.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 18, 1961.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19610418-

01.2.23&srpos=11&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Department of Public Information, Princeton University, February 22, 1969, Arthur J. Horton

Collection on Coeducation, Box 2, Folder 2.

Dickerson, Brian. “It’s a Big Step up from Sorority Rush: Bickering Women Have Few

Gripes.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 3, 1977.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19770203-

01.2.5&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-tower+admit+women------

“Dictionary.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, July 25, 1983.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19830725-

01.2.25&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Dictionary+body+bid----1983--

“‘The Education of Women at Princeton’: A Special Report.” Princeton Alumni Weekly 69, September

24, 1968.

Elkin, Becky. “Faculty proposes coed curriculum as women’s gain popularity.” 25 February 1976.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19760225-

01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+--

--1976--

Elmer Jr., Warren P. Warren P. Elmer Jr. to Harold H. Helm. September 30, 1968, Arthur J. Horton

Collection on Coeducation, Box 8, Folder 2.

“The Final Hurdle.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, January 5, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810105-

01.2.17&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----

1981--

Fitch, Steve. “Bowen Releases Annual Report.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 23, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800423-

01.2.3&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-bowen+women%27s+studies------

Fitch, Stona J. “Trustees okay Warren to head women’s studies.” The Daily Princetonian. 2 November

1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19811102-

01.2.6&srpos=6&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+--

--1981--

Frank, Sally. Interview with author, March 24, 2023.

Goheen, Robert F. The Human Nature of a University. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Goheen, Robert F. “A President Recalls Coeducation.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 13,

1989. https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-

bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19890413-01&getpdf=true

119

Goheen, Robert F. “Overcoming the Obstacles on the Road to Coeducation.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, April 14, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19890414-

01.2.26&srpos=30&e=------198-en-20--21-byDA-txt-txIN-

Robert+F.+Goheen+coeducation------

Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. “Putting the ‘Co’ in Education: Timing, Reasons, and

Consequences of College Coeducation from 1835 to the Present.” Journal of Human Capital,

Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 377-417, (Winter 2011).

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663277?origin=JSTOR-

Gordon, Robert K.“Frank Accuses Clubs of Bias: Lodes Complaint With HEW.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, October 11, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791011-

01.2.22&srpos=2&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Sally+Frank+Title----1979--

Gordon, Robert K. “HEW Opts to Investigate Complaint of Sex Bias by All-Male Eating Clubs.”

Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November 15, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791115-

01.2.12&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Sally+Frank+Title----1979--

Gordon, Robert K. “Wright Answers Frank’s Complaint: Refutes Official Club-University Link.”

Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 6, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800206-

01.2.15&srpos=2&e=-------en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-

a+statement+filed+with+the+N.J.+Division+on+Civil+Rights------

Grant, David. “Ruble seeks reversal of tenure decision; Martin resigns as chairman of Women’s

Studies program.” 10 October 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791010-

01.2.2&srpos=2&e=-10-1979--11-1979-197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

chairman+women%27s+studies----1979--

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. Interview by Michel Martin. “A Look Back at Women’s Studies Since the

1970s,” NPR. March 17, 2010.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124775888

Harmon, Justin. News from Princeton University, July 22, 1986, in Rivinus Papers News Clippings and

Correspondence Box 1, Folder 1.

Harmon, Justin. “The Frank case: What it means for clubs, University.” Princeton Weekly Bulletin

in 14 October 1985, in William M. Rivinius Papers on The Sally Frank Case, Box 1, Folder 1.

Harmon, Justinn. News from Princeton University, Communications/Publications Office, February

27, 1987 in Shapiro President Records, Legal Sally Frank.

“Harvard Law School to Admit Women.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, October 11, 1949.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19491011-

01.2.3&srpos=7&e=------194-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women----1949–

120

Healy, Wendy. “Women’s studies hopes for official committee standing.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ ,December 11, 1975.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19751211-

01.2.14&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Women%27s+Studies+committee----

1975--

Healy, Wendy. “Women’s center: Why the burst of enthusiasm?” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ , January 14,

1976.https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19760114

-01.2.10&srpos=3&e=-01-1976--02-1976-197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

committee+on+women%27s+studies+----1976--

Healy, Wendy. “Women’s studies hopes for official committee standing.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, December 11, 1975.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19751211-

01.2.14&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Women%27s+Studies+committee----

1975--

Herbst, Robert L. “Coed Survey Returns Indicate Overwhelming Faculty Support.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 26,1967.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670426-

01.2.10&srpos=21&e=------196-en-20--21-byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation+at+princeton----

1967--

Herbst, Robert L. “Critical Language Girls Add Flavor to Monastic Existence of Students.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, June 15, 1967.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670615-

01.2.13&srpos=51&e=------196-en-20--41-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Hobler, Herbert W. “’The Education of Women at Princeton’: Should Princeton Decide Now?.”

Princeton, NJ, December 1968, Arthur J Horton Collection on Coeducation, Box 8, Folder

Holland, T. Keating. “Panels select women’s studies committee.” 25 February 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800225-

01.2.4&srpos=5&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----

1980--

Holland, T Keating. “New committee to investigate expansion of women’s studies.” 6 February

1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800206-

01.2.3&srpos=7&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

ad+hoc+committee+women%27s+studies----1980--

“Humanities Group Gains Six Fellows.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, May 29, 1963.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19630529-

01.2.9&srpos=4&e=------196-en-20--1--txt-txIN-the+council+of+humanities------

121

“Ivy Club and Tiger Inn Vote to Admit Women.” Town Topics, Princeton, NJ, February 21, 1990.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19900221-

01.2.31&srpos=1&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1990--

Jeralds, Melanie. “Maynard ‘88: Wilson 1879 Battled to Get Rid of Clubs.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, November 12, 2008.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian20081112-

01.2.3&srpos=5&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-history+of+eating+clubs------

Kagan, Elena. “Frank Files Complaint of Sex Bias.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 21,

1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790221-

01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-Frank+Files+Complaint+of+Sex+Bias------

Kagan, Elena. “Women’s Center organizes education group.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

November 7, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791107-

01.2.26&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-

imperative+that+women+and+also+male+professors+sympathetic+to+women%27s+stud

ies+be+tenured------

Kagan Elena. “Woman Splashed with Beer at Club Files Assault Charge with University.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, December 7, 1978.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19781207-

01.2.7&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank----1978--

Keeler, Brettellen. “Faculty approves name change to gender program at monthly meeting.” 7

December 2010.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian20101207-

01.2.7&srpos=2&e=------201-en-20--1--txt-txIN-gender+and+sexuality+studies+------

“A long way to go.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, October 25, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791025-

01.2.13&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+-

---1979--

Lu, Christopher. “Division on Civil Rights to Rule on Frank Case.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

May 8, 1985.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19850508-

01.2.4&srpos=4&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1985--

Lu, Christopher. “Women’s Studies to endow chair with $1.25m donation.” The Daily Princetonian. 14

May 1986.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19860514-

01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-bowen+women%27s+studies------

Lu, Christopher and Mike Orszag, “Cottage Club to Admit Women.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton,

NJ, January 10, 1986.

122

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19860110-

01.2.2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Cottage+settle+Frank----1986--

Malkiel, Nancy Weiss. “Keep the Damned Woman Out:” The Struggle for Coeducation (The William G.

Bowen). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Markham, James M. “A Diagnosis of Princeton’s Social Illness.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

January 8, 1965.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19650108-

01.2.6&srpos=4&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation------

Marvin, Julie. “Students Blame Campus Social Life for Promoting Sexual Harassment.” U.S.

Department of Education, “Exemptions from Title IX.”

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19861010-

01.2.6&srpos=3&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-classroom+sexism------

Mayes, Richard I. “Mere Suggestion of Co-eds Arouses Faculty Comment.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, December 3,1948.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19481203-

01.2.3&srpos=29&e=------194-en-20--21-byDA-txt-txIN-co%252Ded+------

McGarry, Terry. “New Women’s Studies Head Still Sought.” 6 October 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19811006-

01.2.4&srpos=3&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies+janet+martin----

1981--

Molyneux, Mike. “Clubs Provide Campus with Traditional Social Life.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton,

NJ, July 25, 1974.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740725-

01.2.91&srpos=6&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-cannon+admit+women------

Musen, Bob and Kathy Zeller, “New Women’s Center Initiatives Educational, Cultural Classes,”

Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November 22, 1971.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19711122-

01.2.19&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+center----1971--

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/NJ-Law-Against-Discrimination-Most-

Updated.pdf

Niestat, Edward and Katja David. “Commission Favors Frank in Club Discrimination Suit.” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, May 15,

1985.https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19850515

-01.2.5&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1985--

Nix, Crystal. “Women’s Studies head visits campus.” The Daily Princetonian. 6 April 1982.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19820406-

01.2.5&srpos=1&e=-02-1982--04-1982-198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies----

1982--

123

“On the Nation’s Campus.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, October 12, 1938.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19381012-

01.2.24&srpos=38&e=------193-en-20--21-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

O’Brien, John A., The Tiger Inn Centennial Campaign. 17 June 1987. Office of the Dean of

Undergraduate Student Records, Box 43: Series 2: Student Activities and Organizations.

Pao, Ellen K. “Frank awaits court ruling on suit; students protest against Ivy, Tiger,” Daily

Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 18, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19890218-

01.2.16&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1989--

Paul, William H. “The Trustees: Men at the Top of the Power Structure.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, February 8, 1968.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19680208-

01.2.7&srpos=5&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-coeducation----1968--

Pieringer Stan. “Old Tigers Speak: Alumni-Opinion in Meetings and mail continues to run against

coeducation.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, November 20, 1968.

Platt, Carol A. “Eight-year Frank litigation reflects changing opinions. ” Daily Princetonian, Princeton,

NJ, May 27, 1987.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19870527-

01.2.3&srpos=6&e=-04-1987--06-1987-198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women--

----

Pollack, Andy. “Bicker Bids Due Today.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, February 9, 1973.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19730209-

01.2.4&srpos=5&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-body+bid------

Princeton University Office of the Dean of the Faculty. “A. The Board of the Trustees.”

https://dof.princeton.edu/rules-and-procedures-librarians-princeton-university/governance-

university/board-trustees

Prysant, Mark. “Complaint Against Male Eating Clubs Dropped by N.J., Civil Rights Division.”

Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, September 12, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19790912-

01.2.8&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-did+not+involve+the+University+wright-

-----

Pyne Hall Alterations. April-September 1969 in Office of Physical Planning Records, Box 41, Folder

12.

“Question of the Week.” Town Topics, Princeton, NJ, April 29, 1962.

princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19620429-01.2.85&srpos=19&e=------196-en-

20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

Radcliffe, Evan. “Hanley links original denial to women’s studies interest.” Daily Princetonian,

124

Princeton, NJ, March 14, 1975.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19750314-

01.2.3&srpos=5&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-positive+consideration+in+hiring------

Read, Cynthia. “Female faculty join women’s group.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, April 17,

1974.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740417-

01.2.7&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+--

--1974--

Rein, Richard K. “Poll Reveals Support for Reform of UGC.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

February 7, 1967.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19670207-

01.2.8&srpos=7&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-student+support+coeducation------

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Women’s Studies, Princeton University, May

1980, Office of the President, Box 47, Folder 4.

“Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Residential Life,” Princeton University, May 1979, in

Office of the President Records: William G. Bowen, Box 362, Folder 1.

“Report of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership.” Princeton University,

March

2011. http://wayback.archive-

it.org/5151/20171216175914/https://www.princeton.edu/reports/2011/leadership/docum

ents/SCUWL_Report_Final.pdf

Report of the Trustee Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity. Princeton University, September 2013.

http://wayback.archive-

it.org/5151/20180103110239/http://www.princeton.edu/reports/2013/diversity/report/P

U-report-on-diversity.pdf

Rules & Procedures of the Faculty of Princeton University and Other Provisions of Concern to the Faculty. Office

of the Dean of the Faculty, Princeton University, April 2022.

https://dof.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf3496/files/documents/Rules%20and%20Pro

cedures%20of%20the%20Faculty%20of%20Princeton%20University%202021.jbg_.4.20.pdf

Ruxin, Bob and Cynthia Read. “University Adds Women at Junior Faculty Levels.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, April 23, 1974.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19740423-

01.2.6&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-Lemonick+we%27re+committed------

“Save our Steps.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, May 3, 1940.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19400503-

01.2.18&srpos=2&e=------194-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

125

Schwartz, Doug. “Committee fails to take Women’s Studies vote.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

November 26, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801126-

01.2.4&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+--

--1980--

Schwartz, Doug. “Course of study panel okays women’s studies.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

December 11, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801211-

01.2.3&srpos=9&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+--

--1980--

Schwartz, Doug. “Faculty unit approves women’s studies.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, January

7, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810107-

01.2.2&srpos=2&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies+faculty+----1981--

Schwartz, Doug. “Humanities council approves program for women’s studies.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, October 24, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19801024-

01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

humanities+council+women%27s+studies----1980--

Schwartz, Doug. “Women’s studies plan: Hard fight, smooth win.” The Daily Princetonian. 9 April

1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810409-

01.2.2&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-women%27s+studies----1981--

Schwartz, Dough. “Alumni Trustee Candidates Discuss Issues.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton,

NJ, March 13, 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800313-

01.2.3&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-hamel+CURL-----

“Sex Discrimination Case Against 3 Clubs Sent Back to State’s Civil Rights Division.” Town Topics,

August 3, 1983.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19830803-

01.2.3&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-sally+frank+appellate+----1983--

Sharpless, Geoffrey. “Selective Clubs Report Smooth Bicker Start.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

January 31, 1977.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19770131-

01.2.9&srpos=1&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-colleen+bicker------

Sipress, Alan. “Frank Fails in Attempt to Alter Sexism Ruling.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ,

January 5, 1981.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19810105-

01.2.4&srpos=1&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

U.S.+Department+of+Health%2c+Education+and+Welfare+Frank------

126

Spike, Carlett. “Former Women’s Studies Program Evolves with Male Director.” Princeton Alumni

Weekly, December 2020. https://paw.princeton.edu/article/former-womens-studies-

program-evolves-male-director

“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Frank Suit.” Town Topics, Princeton, NJ, September 27, 1989.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=TownTopics19890927-

01.2.22&srpos=5&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women----1989--

Swain, Erik. “Frank, Clubs End Battle.” Princeton, NJ, Daily Princetonian, June 5, 1992.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19920605-

01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+Frank----1992--

Swain, Erik. “Frank, Clubs End battle.” Princeton, NJ, Daily Princetonian, June 5, 1992.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19920605-

01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------199-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+Frank----1992--

The Alumni Council Award for Service to Princeton, Sally B. Frank ’80 in Office of Communications

Records, Box 110.

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.

“Title IX Evaluation: Report and Recommendations.” Princeton University, November 17, 1976.

Townsend, Rockwell. Rockwell Townsend to President Bowen. August 18, 1981 in Office of the

President Records: William G. Bowen, Box 47, Folder 4.

Tyler, Michael. “Report recommends creation of women’s studies program.” 23 May 1980.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19800523-

01.2.2&srpos=11&e=------198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-

Women%27s+Studies+Hiring+and+Education+Network+%28WHEN%29----1980--

Walter, David. “Crashing the Conservative Party.” Princeton Alumni Weekly, January 2023.

https://paw.princeton.edu/article/crashing-conservative-party

Weinstein, Elissa and Selma Thompson. “Women’s studies program: No such thing.” Princeton, NJ,

Daily Princetonian, October 15, 1979.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19791015-

01.2.16&srpos=4&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Committee+on+Women%27s+Studies+-

---1979--

Weiss, Nancy. Confidential Memorandum on Women’s Studies at Princeton. June 30, 1980 in Office

of the President Records; William G. Bowen Box 47, Folder 3.

Weiss, Nancy. Confidential Memorandum on Women’s Studies at Princeton. October 2, 1979,

Office of the President, Box 47, Folder 3

127

Wessling, Robert. “Harvard faculty approves major in women’s studies.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, November 19, 1986.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19861119-

01.2.21&srpos=1&e=-06-1986--12-1990--en-20--1--txt-txIN-

women%27s+studies+program+------

WHEN? Proposal For: A Women’s Studies Program at Princeton. 1979, in Women’s Center

Records, Box 1.

White, James H. “Graduate School to Admit Four More Women in Fall.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, April 5, 1962.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19620405-

01.2.7&srpos=17&e=------196-en-20--1-byDA-txt-txIN-admit+women------

“Women Reflect About Princeton.” Alumni Weekly, Princeton, NJ, 1989.

Wright, Thomas. Brief on Behalf of Respondent the Trustees of Princeton University. 1990, in

Office of the President Records: Harold T. Shapiro, Box 32.

Wright, Thomas. Thomas Wright to William Bowen. September 10, 1979 in Office of the President

Records: William G. Bowen, Box 360, Folder 6.

Wright, Thonas C. Thomas C. Wright to Regan Kerney, October 29, 1987 in Office of the President

Records: Harold T. Shapiro Subgroup: Subseries 2D: Legal / Frank, Sally v. Princeton

University, Box 32.

Young, John .“Poff Rejects Tiger Inn Motion for Dismissal of Frank Lawsuit.” Daily Princetonian,

Princeton, NJ, November 19, 1987.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19871119-

01.2.5&srpos=13&e=-06-1987--12-1987-198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women-

---1987--

Young, John. “Ivy, T.I. told to go Coed.” Daily Princetonian, Princeton, NJ, May 27, 1987.

https://theprince.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian19870527-

01.2.2&srpos=4&e=-04-1987--06-1987-198-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Tiger+Ivy+admit+women--

--1987--

Zink, Clifford W. The Princeton Eating Clubs. Princeton: Princeton Prospect Foundation, 2017.

128

This thesis represents my own work in accordance with University Regulations.

Baylee A. Cox

April 10, 2023