A Study of The Gunnery and Its Definitions and Implementations of Feminism

A Study of The Gunnery and Its Definitions and Implementations of Feminism

BY GUNN SCHOLAR Evan Johnson ’16 Vol. XV

2016

2015-2016 Gunn Scholar

Evan Johnson

The Gunn Scholar Program The Gunn Scholar is a senior who has been selected, based on aptitude, interest, and character, to pursue original research into some aspect of the life and times of Frederick Gunn’s school, The Gunnery which was founded in 1850.

By selecting The Gunn Scholar, the school community recognizes that this student has demonstrated, over the course of his academic years, those qualities of scholarship and character that the Gunns inscribed into the mission of the school. This program represents the concerted thought and planning of the history department. The Gunn Scholar will receive one credit in History. He will do original research in our archives and elsewhere on some aspect of the Gunn legacy.

One of this year’s two Gunn Scholars, Evan Johnson, is researching The Gunnery’s relationship with various aspects of feminism. He has concentrated on two particular eras in the school’s history: that of coordination in the 1960s and early 1970s and the installation of coeducation in 1977. Using letters, administrative documents, and other accounts in The Gunnery’s archives as well as pursuing leads in other archives and online, the scholar will also interview living participants of this period.

In the equivalent of one full-time academic course—that is, two short periods and two long periods per week— the Gunn Scholar will: • Learn the techniques of original research, working closely with the archivist and a member of the history faculty • Prepare an account of his research • • •

As a published, written document As a public presentation to The Gunnery community As a public presentation at the Gunn Museum

1. To provide a preliminary scholarly context, the Gunn Scholar will read among other things The Gender Politics of Educational Reform Voices of Hope: Adolescent Girls in Single Sex and Coeducational schools; Preparing For Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools; and Mere Equals: The Paradox of Educated Women in the Early American Republic.

This yearlong project is divided into three, roughly equal, parts: research—writing— public presentation, each intended to occupy a full term.

Paula Gibson Krimsky Archivist and School Historian

A Study of The Gunnery and Its Definitions and Implementations of Feminism Evan Johnson `16 The Gunnery - Mr. Gunn’s School Established 1850

©2016 by Evan Johnson. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without extensive help from a wide range of people. I am eternally grateful for the help that I have received. Arguably more important, I will never forget the amazing people that I have met and learned from throughout the project.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my primary advisor, Mrs. Krimsky, for all of her help. She put tireless hours into the project and made a number of significant contributions to it.

She was also a mentor for me and helped me through the numerous difficulties, helping me to not only solve the specific problems but also become a better problem-solver in general.

Furthermore, she helped me to not be too strong and definitive in my argument, but rather to consider other viewpoints. The project would not be what it is if it were not for her and I am very grateful.

Next, my other advisor, Mr. Miller played a large role in the development of the project as well. Mr. Miller was instrumental in helping me establish the reference points and benchmarks that would be the fundamental building blocks of the entire project. Without the numerous discussions that I had with him, it would have taken me much longer to analyze the information for the pieces of evidence and ideas that would become the thesis points of my paper. More generally, I thank Mr. Miller for opening my eyes to gender studies and all of the amazing concepts involved. Even more generally, I thank Mr. Miller for providing me with the first look that I have had at exciting, active intellectual discussions in an academic setting, which has motivated me to seek these purposeful discussions in everything that I do.

Next, I would like to thank Mr. Michael Eanes for his help and mentorship on the project.

Despite not being an official advisor of mine, Mr. Eanes put in the effort of one. Whenever I needed help finding information — whether it be a living source or important documents — Mr. Eanes was there to help. He always accommodated my busy schedule despite a busy schedule of his own. Even more importantly, Mr. Eanes acted as a sort of mentor throughout the project.

Having lived the time period that I am studying, he was able to provide me with the background information that was necessary to start the project. He also provided me with a number of important reference points that would prove vital in the completion of the project.

I would like to extend gratitude to Dr. Ciarleglio for his extensive help on the project.

His help with last-minute adjustments to the paper was crucial to the completion of a well-

1

polished work. Additionally, his help with formatting for publication were essential to the project. I extend my gratitude to him.

Since the project was so expansive and involved a number of schools, I was constantly needing help finding the information that was necessary for my project. A number of people were very helpful in finding this for me. I would like to thank Ms. Gilchrist, the archivist at Taft School, who was generous enough to find the information regarding coeducation at Taft and then host me for one day so that I could go through all of the information. Furthermore, I would like to thank Mr. Richard Cobb from Taft for his wide and important contributions to the project. It is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Paige Roberts, the archivist at Phillips Academy. She was instrumental in my research that I did regarding Andover, which proved to be very important to my project as a whole.

The next group of people that were instrumental in my project were a number of people who I interviewed. Their insight into a complicated time made my project all the more easy to write. Without their help, I would not have been able to have such a detailed, multi-faceted analysis of the time period. So, I would like to thank Andrea Wells, Ann Lipham Watson, Michael Spence, Carole Rowe, Mr. Small, and Heidi Rowe. The contributions that these individuals made are very much appreciated.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of my friends, particularly my roommates Chad Varney, Connor Dahlman, Trevin Kozlowski, and Jordan Roberts for their support throughout the entire project. Not only were they supportive of me, but they also helped me when I struggled with certain elements of the project. There were a number of times when I reached an intellectual crossroads in the project and they always helped by discussing the abstract ideas with me. The discussions almost always led to me solidifying my ideas on a certain subject. Furthermore, their presence in at our desks studying late at night helped me power through the late nights that I might not have been able to get through without their support. I am eternally grateful to you guys. Pentaud Forever.

Lastly, and most importantly I would like to thank my family for their extensive help on the project. First, I would like to thank my brother, Noah for helping me intellectually on the project. He helped me develop all of my ideas for the project and I am very grateful for it. I would like to thank my parents for the large amount of time that they put into helping edit the project. It was unbelievably helpful.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Author’s Page Course Description Acknowledgements Table of Contents Prologue Chapter 1 - Broad Historical Context Chapter 2 – Gender in the Early Years At The Gunnery Chapter 3 – Coordination Chapter 4 – Early Culture of School Chapter 5 – Decision Point Chapter 6 – Unequal Beginnings Chapter 7 – Mr. Kern and Coeducation Chapter 8 – Co-Curricular Policy Chapter 9 – Academic Policy Chapter 10 – Social Life and Gender Chapter 11 – Female Role Models Chapter 12 – Culture of School Chapter 13 – Perspective Chapter 14 – How it Progressed Chapter 15 – Coeducation and Psychosexual Development Chapter 16 – Broader Implications Chapter 17 – Changing It Chapter 18 – Current State

P. 1 P. 3 P. 4 P. 11 P. 16 P. 20 P. 23 P. 28 P. 31 P. 37 P. 43 P. 57 P. 64 P. 71 P. 75 P. 81 P. 85 P. 89 P. 92 P. 95 P. 100

Appendix

P. 103

Works Cited

P. 104

3

Prologue What is your definition of gender equity? Or, are you more familiar with the phrase gender equality? Nowadays, most Americans believe in gender equality and attempt to practice it on a daily basis. But, it is important to think critically and carefully about what it means to achieve gender equality or gender equity. The conventional and widely held definition of gender equality today is one that was conceived and shaped decades ago. This definition of gender equality is rooted in the meaning of the second word: equality. Equality implies a certain sameness with other people. When applied to people, equality means that they are treated the same and given the same tools to work with. So, gender equality operates under the assumption that males and females are the same in a biological, psychological, intellectual, and social sense.

Thus, under this concept, the difference between the sexes comes in the form of learned traits throughout one’s development; that is, as part of a socialization process, or, in popular terms, the nurturing of gender identity through environmental influences. So, within this widespread definition of gender equality, the aspired-to benchmark is essentially that men and women are treated the same and are given the same opportunities outside of things that cannot be equalized.

Gender equality is said to be achieved in the workplace when men and women are given the same treatment, opportunities, and compensation. Put another way, this definition of equality is one that operates in a “gender-blind” manner. Most Americans today operate under the assumption that one avoids vulnerability to the charge of sexism by treating men and women the same. Doesn’t this definition of gender equality sound pretty great? It is both intellectually satisfying and very simple. If The Gunnery were able to achieve this, wouldn’t it be the perfect place for girls to attend school? If The Gunnery were able to achieve this, wouldn’t all the girls in the school be content with their experience at The Gunnery? Although it seems as though this would be the case, closer consideration demonstrates that it is clearly not. A new age of feminists have perceived certain adverse effects and unintended consequences from the realization of this second-wave equality.

4

In order to understand the issue with a feminist approach to gender, it is helpful to introduce a conceptual model: the idea of the mind-body split. Representing a dualistic thread of philosophical thought dating from the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, to the 17th century philosopher-mathematician Rene Descartes, and, more recently, extended and developed in the context of feminism by philosophy professor Elizabeth Grosz, the mind-body split has had pervasive effects on gender identification. This paradigm articulates the relationship between mind and its correlates, such as rational thought, intelligence, and mental discipline (toughness).

The body is associated with emotion, intuitive thought and action, creativity, and passion.

“Male” and “female” assignment to polar ends of the spectrum of personality traits produced the association of maleness with intelligence, mental toughness, competition, and discipline over and above the body, and femaleness with emotion, sensitivity, intuition, artistic creativity, and collaboration. Despite recognition that the individual could manifest attributes from both ends of the spectrum and that their identity and personality could reflect a harmonious balance of both, an unfortunate outcome was a strong association of gender with the extremes of the spectrum.

Socialization has supported the creation of a male identity centered on development and accentuation of male attributes, and suppression or discipline over the female influences. In fact, in a process of internal conversion, males are encouraged to morph feelings and attributes referable to the female side of the split into male, cerebral, or rational forms. Similarly, women who are considered as reflecting the body side of the split are socialized to reflect attributes that fit a feminine mold of identity. The obvious correlate is the purposeful suppression within the individual of traits, thoughts, and aspirations that would, if they were instead nurtured and developed, create a more rounded and capable human.

Deeply embedded in conceptions of gender equity are questions of gender identity or gender definition. While always present, these issues have emerged to challenge our collective conception of gender in recent years. While this book cannot hope to scratch the surface of gender identification, it is important to touch on the subjects of gender identity and gender conception. Gender can be defined along several axes including genotypic gender (XX or XY sex chromosomes), phenotypic gender (identification of gender by physical characteristics including reproductive organs), and individual gender identification (the individual perception of self along gender lines). While incompletely understood, gender identification appears to be influenced by genetic, epigenetic (in utero gene expression modification), and postnatal

5

environmental and social influences (Johnson Interview). Nevertheless, the world has relied on the simplifying construct that there is a fairly strong association between females demonstrating "feminine traits" and males exhibiting "masculine traits." Past theories postulating that this occurs largely as a result of environmental or social influences have ignored evidence of biologic determinants of in utero development of a "male" or "female" brain. While there is no quintessential male or female brain, there are undeniable differences, and even in the absence of different socialization patterns, there exist discernable male and female brain patterns that allow identification of the majority of humans as male or female with regard to their gender identification.

In a gender-equality model, the assumption that everyone is biologically and intellectually identical and shares identical aspirations regardless of gender, a fundamental reality of our world is ignored. Forcing women into a gender-blind environment that was essentially built around a historically male domain has negative consequences. So, when the goal of equality is simply to let women into the spaces previously held exclusively by males, women must enter a masculine realm. Often times, masculine traits are valued due to their long standing within these certain spaces. Women are allowed to enter the masculine, dominant realm, but they must exhibit the traits that the men demonstrate in order to be successful in these previously male-dominated spheres. Proponents of this definition of equality would argue that the traits that women traditionally exhibit are inferior to the traits of the mind-side of the split, or the masculine traits.

So, instead of embracing the value embedded in the characteristics on the opposite side of the personality spectrum — such as collaboration — the places that men historically dominated continue to be dominated by masculine traits despite the presence of women. Those who believe in this definition of gender equality would argue that these traits are demonstrably superior and more important than the more characteristically feminine side of the split. They would argue further that these traits are neither masculine nor feminine, but rather, are merely the result of socialization. So within this model, the notion that inherent gender-associated differences exist is deemed artificial and inappropriate. But, I will demonstrate this in the rest of the novel that this is not a valid assumption and instead results in negative consequences. The world does not exist in a vacuum that only shows biological traits and not those learned. Thus, there are societal pressures that can affect the personality. Ignoring undeniable biological and socialenvironmental influences ignores reality itself. People come to school, work, or any venue with

6

complex, yet observable, differences on the basis of their gender, and ignoring that fact will have unintended consequences. So when women enter any previously male-dominated sphere, they are necessarily disadvantaged because, to the degree they represent any traditional conception of female gender, they now exist and compete in a system designed for, by, and around males and male value systems.

In response to these apparent issues with the older definition rooted in the latter term equality, a new definition rooted in a new term has been developed. This is what people refer to as “gender equity.” Unlike equality, equity does not operate under the tenant of not seeing gender. Rather, equity is a term used to describe a situation characterized by fairness and impartiality. This new definition of gender equity is meant to embrace the traits traditionally considered part of the body-feminine side of the split. This new movement argues that the traits that women generally exhibit, regardless of whether or not they inherited them or acquired them as the result of socialization, are valuable, and therefore enrich the places previously dominated by masculine traits. The movement urges people to accept, respect, and value the wide array of traits that women have. One of these traits — that people argue should be accepted and respected — is sensuality. People involved in this movement argue that women should be allowed to embrace their sensuality and still be respected in a professional manner. They argue the premise that the system of power residing in the arena of masculine traits should be dissolved in order to redefine, recreate, and thereby enrich the environment through the integration of these traditionally feminine traits, including collaboration and creativity. This movement has been defined as the third wave of feminism and is meant to embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints. The previous definition, which was rooted in the word “equality,” is considered the second wave of feminism. Although it is relatively new, the third wave of feminism is starting to gain traction and promote the equity that people have come to use as a more valid metric of progress.

When The Gunnery transitioned to coeducation, the second wave definition of equality was the measuring stick that was used to assess the performance of coeducation. The administrators perceived the benchmarks for achieving successful coeducation to be that girls were given the same opportunities that boys were. In other words, The Gunnery essentially kept the same model in place for an all-boys school and imposed girls into this model. Instead of adding prestigious art programs to match the academic and athletic programs at the school, The Gunnery simply attempted to add the girls into the already-existing programs at the school.

7

Furthermore, the school, like many other previously all-male institutions, exuded a masculine values system. At the school, competitiveness, toughness, and rationality were valued over collaboration and other traits found at the body-feminine end of the spectrum. Furthermore, since the majority of the school was (and still is) male, the masculine traits dominated and were attributed largely greater value among the student body and faculty. Therefore, since the average female student at The Gunnery exhibited feminine traits due to socialization or other determinants, they were never valued properly at the school. This was most apparent in an academic setting with certain disciplines that were considered masculine. In classes such as math and physics, girls were underrepresented in the higher academic course levels despite their similar objective and performance measures. When the traits that they exhibited were not appropriately valued, girls lost confidence and they avoided higher-level classes. So, the “gender-blind” approach that was taken alienated and segregated female students from certain academic areas of the school.

Furthermore, despite adopting the second wave definition of equality as a template, the school failed to optimally execute this vision. Due to a number of different factors, the female athletic program at the school came nowhere close to equaling the boys' programs. The coaches for the girls’ teams were not as experienced or talented as the coaches for the males. The locker rooms for the girls were so subpar that they never used them. The indoor playing facilities were far worse for the girls than the guys. The outdoor playing fields were similarly inferior. The girls’ athletic teams did not possess the same influence with the admissions office as the male athletic program. The girls’ jerseys were inferior to the boys’ jerseys. There was a large disparity between financial support for the boys' and girls' sports programs. There was far less press coverage of the girls’ athletic programs than the boys’ athletic programs. Culturally, the girls’ sports were not valued as much and were not perceived to be as central to the culture of the school when compared to male athletics. So, even under the “gender-blind” assumption that girls should simply play sports like the boys, they did not achieve equality.

As time has gone on — and through diligent planning and effort — some of the major issues of coeducation have been fixed. The girls’ athletic program is, by all measures, significantly better than it was in 1977. With regards to academic programs, the disparities between male and female participation and achievement have narrowed considerably. Yet, the “gender-blind” approach effectively remains in place. Rather than develop and extend programs

8

tailored to and designed for disciplines more traditionally associated with the feminine side of the mind-body dualism, girls are expected to participate in sports. The programs that do embody the “feminine” traits are recognized as some of the weaker aspects of the school. These programs simply do not have the same influence with admissions as the athletic teams, thereby creating a challenge recruiting and retaining talented female students attracted to these programs. So, despite evident progress made within the “gender-blind” model, the flaws inherent in this approach are still present at the school.

At this point, from a critical point of view, it seems that we have failed to fully realize the ambitious goal of gender equity, nor have we even quite reached gender equality. A widespread benchmark for gender equality is Title IX laws; however, The Gunnery does not accept federal aid and thus does not have to follow these guidelines. However, other schools in New England prep schools followed the strict tenets of Title IX, or at least as close as possible. When Taft became co-educational, the headmaster was a very intelligent, forward-looking man. Instead of simply imposing girls into the male model of education, he aspired to a “third-wave” definition of equity. He introduced successful arts, drama, and music programs. He attempted to dissolve the power structure surrounding the masculine culture and fostered respect for and acceptance of the feminine-body side of the duality. Phillips Academy Andover started their transition to coeducation with the idea that a “gender-blind” approach would represent the path to equality.

However, as time went on, the school began to realize that this idealistic — but flawed — approach would not suffice. So, shortly after the transition to coeducation, the leadership at the school transitioned into a more modern notion of gender equity. They introduced and developed the programs reflecting the more traditional feminine side of the spectrum and worked hard to make them prestigious programs.

The Gunnery currently confronts the challenge of achieving gender equity at the school, making up lost-ground on schools with a more developed gender equity model. The “genderblind” approach, while well-intentioned and historically grounded, is simply outdated and does not fully meet the needs of the females who attend the school. Furthermore, this is not only an issue of gender equity but also a matter of developing well-rounded students, whether male or female. When a student of either gender suppresses, abandons, redirects, or incompletely develops traits, values, and attributes because they are not nurtured in the school environment, they will fail to develop their full creative and intellectual potential. Ultimately, this will prove

9

detrimental to their future success. Gender equity not only addresses the issue of fair and appropriate treatment of female students, but also enriches the academic experience of both genders. Full development of all aspects of a student's intellect will lead to greater success in the years beyond their studies at The Gunnery.

10

Chapter 1 | Broad Historical Context It is important to note that this chapter of the book proposes simply to provide a larger, historical background of the times in question so that the subsequent discussion will fit into proper context. This chapter represents, therefore, not the focal point of the book, but rather it provides a broad context for the information and ideas presented throughout. Given more time, this would be the area that I would elaborate more fully to produce a more comprehensive treatise. However, time does not permit an extensive look into the political and cultural history of women in America; therefore, I will simply summarize so that one can better contextualize the information to follow. I chose to only broadly relate the history of the women’s movements in the United States due to constraints of space and relevancy.

The first large-scale women’s rights movement did not emerge until around 1848 when a convention in Seneca Falls, New York, was convened to address the topic. Although there were previously not any historically consequential movements, tension had been growing and gaining momentum before the convention. At this meeting, the Declaration of Sentiments was brought forth as a document focused on the task of acquiring the most basic rights for women (Declaration of Sentiments). The first order of business was to explicitly establish that women were equal to men and then to assert this right. The women largely took a legal view of the situation, demanding the right to vote and, generally, the abolition of any laws supporting gender inequity. Similar to the Declaration of Independence, they considered these rights established and true under the natural world order that God had created. This Declaration set the stage for the first wave of women’s rights’ movements in the United States that would last for the next 70 years.

Two years after this first large-scale, but regional, convention on the rights of women, there was another convention — but this time on a national scale. The first National Women’s Rights Convention took place in Worcester, Massachusetts. There were approximately 1,000 people in attendance (Satanvosky). The convention became a regular national forum on the issue held every year through 1860.

As the movement progressed, it began to focus on the women’s suffrage movement as the necessary first step to achieving equal rights. Consequently, in 1869, two women’s suffrage groups were founded: the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman

11

Suffrage Association. The difference in the two groups was that the former advocated an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as the best path forward to achieve voting rights for women. The latter group, however, held that a strategy of persuading individual states to alter their constitutions to allow women the right to vote was the wiser and more expeditious path.

These two organizations merged in 1890, and collectively deferred to the strategy of action at the individual state constitutional level. This began to pay off in 1893 when Colorado became the first state to amend their constitution and give women the right to vote. Many other states followed suit over the next 30 years.

Later, during World War I, significant numbers of men from the United States went to war, leaving crucial vacancies in the workforce. This was compounded by the fact that the United States committed to large-scale production of ammunitions and other war supplies.

Therefore, large numbers of women became factory workers in order to fill gaps in the workforce. There was significant cultural opposition to this, as many believed that women should not work in positions formerly and typically held by men. However, out of sheer necessity, women were thrust into this position, which increased the percentage of women in the workforce dramatically. Not only did women prove their worth and viability in the workforce, but they also experienced a taste of freedom. Many women enjoyed having a claim to their own earnings and, thus, achieved a new sense of symbolic independence from their fathers and husbands. This novel freedom manifested itself in a newfound sense of confidence among women, which led to further support of the suffrage movement.

The first wave of women’s rights, centered largely on gaining women’s suffrage, came to its partial realization when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the final state in 1920. This amendment gave women the right to vote throughout the country, but was, originally, only inclusive of women over 30 who owned homes. Then, in 1928, all women over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. This largely marked the end of the first wave of women’s rights.

Next came the era after the war: the roaring twenties. This time period was one in which there were large cultural and sociological movements throughout the country. One prominent aspect of this cultural evolution was the broad challenge to notions of traditional female values.

The women who embodied this mindset were referred to as Flappers. They were known for

12

showing their ankles in public, drinking publicly, and treating sex in a casual manner, which was very extreme just coming off of the Victorian era. In general, they hoped to challenge the cultural norms relating to social and sexual behavior. Although the majority of women of the time showed disdain for these women, it was undeniable that a sizable group of women felt sufficiently empowered to behave publicly in such a previously unimaginable manner.

In the subsequent period spanning four decades, although it included important movements to promote the availability, acceptance, and awareness of contraceptives, consequential national movements on behalf of women would wait until the 1960s, when such movements exploded. In the 1960s, women were becoming progressively more disgruntled with workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, and the sense of societal pressure and expectations for them to assume the roles of exclusively housewives and mothers.

One very influential work was the thesis presented by Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963. In short, it discussed the construction of the female identity within the current society. It voiced discontent with the societal expectation of being mothers and wives.

This influential piece seems to have, in part, sparked the second stage of the women’s rights movement. This stage, also referred to as the Second Wave of feminism, placed its focus on the political power structure perceived to be holding women down. They hoped to better understand and ultimately alter the political roots of their suppression.

On June 10th, 1963, the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, making it illegal for employers to deny women equal pay for equal work. While full realization of this goal would, in reality, elude women to this very day, the event proved extremely important as it marked the moment when women would, at least nominally, be officially remunerated equally to their male counterparts. This represented a significant achievement for the women's movement, having been a stated goal of the movement for some time.

The next major manifestation of legislative progress came in the form of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. This act prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, and included public schools and colleges around the country. The act was later augmented by broadening the rule to include any schools receiving federal funding. This event represented a monumental turning point for the educational system in America. Not only did this mean that public schools were legally obligated to cease discrimination on the basis of sex, but the implications rippled through private high schools and colleges, forcing them to self-reflect upon

13

their educational status as single-sex institutions. This self-reflection facilitated moves toward coeducation, as well as self-censure regarding discrimination on the basis of sex. As the author of A Portrait of a School: Coeducation at Andover, Kathleen M. Dalton said this caused an “equity earthquake� in which many private schools began to mirror the public schools, and their approach of gender equity (Dalton 1).

In 1966, Betty Friedan and a group of feminists founded the National Organization of Women, or NOW. The expressed purpose was to put a stop to the sexual discrimination common in the workplace. They planned to achieve this through public demonstrations, litigation, and government lobbying.

Several years later, in 1969, the country adopted a no-fault divorce law, which permitted women to leave unhealthy marriages without prejudicial legal consequences, although there were some states which had ratified a law. Before this, women were often stuck in unhealthy marriages because it was difficult for women to prove to the courts that their husbands had abused them. Also, women were no longer forced to stay in relationships in which they were unhappy, regardless of whether or not they had been victims of abuse. Thus, women experienced more freedom in their life choices leading to more control and the ability to pursue individual happiness in their lives.

All of these movements, which focused on freedom and equality for women, were part of what is referred to as second-wave feminism, which is typically said to have taken place between the early 1960s and the 1980s. After this period, we enter the modern era of feminism, sculpted largely in response to perceived issues and deficiencies associated with second-wave feminism.

It is important to admit the difficulty in articulating a comprehensive definition of thirdwave feminism, so in my attempt to define it, I must depart from the movement itself. The aversion to definitions within the movement likely stems from the advent of postmodern thought.

In this new paradigm, rigid definitions are avoided because the world is in a constant state of formation and reformation. Therefore, the third-wave believers think that second-wave feminism was too rigid; that the movement articulated excessively stringent definitions of what women should be in order to earn their rights. Much of the literature of the third-wave movement is anecdotal and personalized, consciously resisting the assumption of confining generalizations.

Thus, third-wave feminism has been a movement largely concerned with offering a less constrained and centralized definition of what it is to be a feminist and/or feminine.

14

However, there are certain themes that can be confidently ascribed to the movement. One third-wave feminist argued “against a straw woman – a frumpy, humorless, anti-sex caricature of second-wave feminists” (Snyder 190). A couple of major tenets of third-wave feminism can be determined from this mocking assessment of the previous age of feminism. First, they aim to disavow the construct of feminists as “frumpy, humorless, anti-sex” people. The third-wave feminists express dismay that the second-wavers confined themselves within a box of personality traits in an attempt to gain equality, hence the description of them as a “caricature.”

Consequently, third-wave feminists endeavor to expand the tent of inclusion amongst women yearning for equality to include the heretofore marginalized women exhibiting identity traits and personalities that include traditional female norms and roles. A quotation from one third-wave feminist argues the point when she states,"maybe we should be painting our nails in the boardroom'...in order to bring our girliness into male-defined spaces" (Snyder 193). To an extent, third-wave feminists disagree with the notion that females must masculinize themselves in order to be respected. They are critical of second-wave feminism that seems to describe “antifemininity” in a pejorative sense. Many third-wave feminists do not want to reflexively assimilate into the masculine world. Rather, they want to be able to embrace their femininity and still be respected. Often times, this is not manifested in overtly serious terms, but rather embraces the less serious, more fun aspects of the female identity. Furthermore, since the movement takes pride in its individuality and lack of central definitions, each person has different ideas as to what it all means, so this view by definition does not apply to everyone in the movement.

Overall, significant progress has been made in the arena of women’s rights in this country. However, many, especially including the third-wave feminists, maintain that substantially more progress needs to be made.

15

Chapter 2 | Gender in Early Years of The Gunnery The Gunnery was founded in 1849 by Mr. Frederick Gunn. From its establishment until 1920, the school was considered to be a coeducational boarding school. However, it seems this designation could be misleading as a characterization of the school by today's or even Frederick Gunn's standards. A contemporary observer would likely assume that the designation referred to a nearly balanced male-female institution in terms of enrollment and mission. When describing the school, Mr. Gunn typically referred to the students as “his boys,” which suggests he thought of the school as essentially a male entity. But, in a speech to the Teacher’s Convention in Hartford in 1877, he digressed from this talk of “his boys” and stated, as an aside, that girls would be part of an ideal school environment (Gunn). It is unclear exactly what he meant by the phrase, as it could have been interpreted in various ways. However, Mr. Gunn’s views on education are not critically relevant to the subsequent history of the school because the school developed, in essence, as an all-boys school, but ultimately would become co-educational. This is true both in the proportional attendance of females in the early school, but also in the entire culture and mission of the school. While Mr. Gunn accepted girls into the school, they represented a far smaller proportion of the student body, and, perhaps more importantly, were relatively separate with regards to expectations when compared to the male students.

In terms of attendance, there were females who sporadically attended The Gunnery in early years (Gunn Museum). Many of the girls who attended The Gunnery were in some way connected to the Brinsmade family. The Brinsmade family consisted of Mr. Gunn’s in-laws from his marriage to Abigail Brinsmade. The Brinsmades had a family tradition reflecting the importance of higher education for females as compared to the typical, similarly educated family of the time (So). Thus, a number of the girls in the family attended The Gunnery for a number of years and graduated. This was not typical, though, for most girls attending the school. The typical female student would come to the school for a year and then leave before graduating (Gunn Museum). Although there is no official record that would explain this phenomenon, it seems likely related to the culture of educated families in that era. The daughters of wealthy and educated families were not expected to attain this secondary school level of education. They were expected to marry well as a first imperative, and, therefore, education had not the utilitarian

16

import that it did for males. Thus, when the daughters of wealthy families came to the school (and this was largely the demographic as the family had to be reasonably wealthy to afford matriculation), it was not likely the students would go on to higher levels of education. Without this expectation, and because attendance was not compulsory, it would be more likely that a female student would disenroll. The shorter period of matriculation for female students was certainly not mandated by the school, but, rather, is likely to have as its cause the family dynamics of that era (Gibson).

The other way in which the Brinsmade family was connected to female attendance at The Gunnery was through the Judea Seminary. Mary Brinsmade, sister of Abigail Brinsmade founded the seminary in Washington, Connecticut. She started the school in her father’s house, initially offering classes for the local girls. However, she later expanded and founded a formal school that included 80 girls from all around the country. The seminary operated from 1847 to 1852. The school was controversial as many in the community, including the church, did not approve of educating women in such a progressive manner. Frederick Gunn, however, was supportive of the new school. He had a sort of meeting of the minds with his sister-in-law Mary that he seemed to lack with his wife Abigail. Abigail was older than Mary and did not have the same educational opportunities at the first college-level seminary at Mt. Holyoke that her younger sister enjoyed. Mr. Gunn was involved with the school as he helped Mary grade papers.

Also, when The Gunnery opened in 1850, some of the girls from the Judea Seminary attended the new school. This lasted for just the first couple of years that The Gunnery was open concurrently with the Judea Seminary (Gibson).

Thus, the fact that there was limited female attendance at the school does not seem to reflect a practical intent on the part of Mr. Gunn, due to certain constraints mentioned above.

Anytime female students were interested and capable of coming to the school, Mr. Gunn welcomed their attendance. As mentioned, it does not seem as though Mr. Gunn was a deciding factor in the girls’ shorter matriculation periods, rather the phenomenon can probably be attributed to cultural factors common to the time period. However, even though Mr. Gunn was demonstrably supportive of girls attending his school, there were still far fewer girls than boys at the school. Furthermore, Mr. Gunn’s support for the concept of coeducation of female students does not therefore exclude the prospect that the educational environment, including differing expectations and practices, was not as conducive to the optimal education of female students.

17

In addition to the lack of consistent female representation in the student body, there was a very masculine culture and foundational purpose of the school. As Jessica Xu, previous Gunn Scholar, points out in her discussion of the mission of sports at The Gunnery, Mr. Gunn placed a very high value on athletics (Xu 7). Xu reports that Mr. Gunn elevated sport above other aspects of the school, even academics. This was not common in the American prep school realm at the time. The reason for this dedication to sports was because Mr. Gunn felt that they would build the character of and create enjoyment for the students — not an uncommon mindset among traditional boarding schools in the Old World or, indeed, Greek civilization, but perhaps anomalous in the degree to which he emphasized athletics. He felt that the sports taught the students qualities such as “self-restraint” “courage” and “nerve,” all basically referring to remaining calm and unemotional during the game (Xu 7). Mr. Gunn was so dedicated to a life of sports that he himself played first base on the baseball team, the focal point of the athletic program at the time. This is not only very strange by today’s standards, but also seems to have been strange at the time as no other founders or headmasters played on the sports teams of their schools (Xu 7). Mr. Gunn seemed to want to embody the idea of “Muscular Christianity” in which life is dedicated to developing physical and moral strength (Xu 6). Thus, considering that the socialization of girls at the time was oriented to eschew being competitive and playing sports, and the girls were not part of the sports tradition at The Gunnery, they were therefore largely excluded from the identity of the school.

Furthermore, the ways in which he developed moral strength while also building physical toughness, Mr. Gunn was very harsh on the boys. He would supply serious punishments for everyone who broke the rules. For example, if one of the boys was found to be a bully, he would have to crawl through the legs of his peers and they would all take a whack at him. Further, a boy who tattled would have to keep a cork in his mouth. Mr. Gunn would also make all of the boys yell early in the morning until they were all up. Despite all of this cruelty, he would still kiss all of the boys goodnight to prove that it was all out of love (Gibson). Thus, these punishments and forms of treatment would not be used on girls who were considered more fragile at the time. So, girls were not part of two of the main aspects in the school. They were certainly ostracized to some extent, but were content with the difference in treatment that they received (Gibson). Therefore, the girls who attended were not fully members of the school community, especially not the culture of it, which valued masculinity heavily.

18

The way in which the school became officially single-sex was, surprisingly, not due to a philosophical change in the school, but rather as a byproduct of its move to becoming a more official entity. The last female graduate of that early era from The Gunnery was Mary Brinsmade in 1905 (Gunn Museum). The school became officially single-sex in 1922 (Krimsky Interview).

In the early 20th century, academic centers were under pressure to assume accreditation and regulation as official entities as compared to loosely constructed and largely independent private endeavors. Part of the process was a definitive declaration regarding the status of the school as regards the makeup of the student body. The school was formally incorporated by Mr. John Brinsmade in 1914 (Krimsky Interview). The intent was to sell the school to Mr. Hamilton Gibson who would formally administer the school in the new era. However, Mr. Gibson lacked the financial means to purchase the school, and so Mr. Vic McCutcheon, a wealthy alumnus of the Gunnery and a Washington, Connecticut native, brought together a number of alumni who purchased shares of ownership. Mr. Gibson was then given the reins of the school as headmaster with the mandate of ushering in a new era of education at the Gunnery. One of the early decisions necessitated designation as single-sex or coeducational, and The Gunnery became a single-sex school on that basis in 1922 (Krimsky Interview).

The founding of other schools that allowed female students was also a factor in the decision to become a single-sex school. The founding of the nearby Wykeham Rise School by Ms. Fanny Davies in 1903 meant that fewer girls would attend The Gunnery (Krimsky Interview). Furthermore, girls preferred to attend a girls’ school rather than what was, heretofore in practical terms, a boys’ school at The Gunnery. Consequently, with all these factors in play, The Gunnery became a single-sex school in 1922 (Gibson).

It is interesting to note that the board minutes from the time include no discussion of whether or not the school should be a single-sex institution; the school knew which way it would go when an official policy had to be put into place. There had been no female graduates since 1905 and many of the other boarding schools were officially becoming single-sex. Thus, all information points to the fact that the school was essentially an all-boys school culturally despite it technically being a co-educational institution.

19

Chapter 3 | Coordination The coordination between The Gunnery and Wykeham Rise began in the 1967-1968 academic year (Eanes Interview). It came about through two major factors: an internal one being the recognition that a perfect opportunity to create a unique boarding school experience for students of both Wykeham Rise and The Gunnery was at hand, and another being the larger social trend towards coordination. The motivating philosophy of the union of the two schools was thought to be that The Gunnery would offer a great academic education, and Wykeham would provide a great arts education. Functionally, buses went back and forth between the two schools every other period. Boys would go to Wykeham to take art and some language classes, and girls from Wykeham came to study other academic disciplines at The Gunnery. Additionally, some boys from The Gunnery would go to Wykeham after school in order to participate in the arts instead of playing on a sports team at The Gunnery. The number of boys who did this represented, however, a significant minority (Eanes Interview).

The other reason for coordination has been well stated by those who studied the coeducation at Phillips Academy Andover. Reports argued that their transition to coordination added “relevance” to the current system of single-sex education (Dalton 11). In other words, since many universities and all public schools were moving towards coeducation, coordination brought the single-sex boarding school into the present age. Many of the schools looked at this as a sort of first step or trial run in coeducation. It convinced those who might have shied away due to the lack of girls, chose to, in fact, attend a boarding school. Furthermore, prep schools were falling out of favor as colleges no longer simply looked to “feeder” boarding schools in order to fill their enrollments (Cobb Interview). Rather, universities began to look for more diversity in the form of students from different backgrounds. Thus, boarding schools no longer had the advantage of being feeder schools into the best universities in the country. So, in order to gain favor, they attempted to gain relevancy in the form of admitting girls to the school (Cobb Interview). But, it seems that most schools were hesitant to do so fully because coeducation had not yet been proven effective. Thus, coordination was like a trial run for coeducation, or a way to stay in favor without committing to coeducation. The Gunnery pursued this route as they were being acted on by the same forces as their prep peers.

20

The cultural difference between the co-ordinating schools was considerable. Wykeham Rise was a school focused on the arts, and thus had many teachers who were more artistic and freethinking (Lipham Watson Interview). The Gunnery faculty, on the other hand, was more traditional in the academic sense and was also less artistically oriented than the Wykeham faculty. In addition, the type of student who went to each school was quite different. The Gunnery attracted people who were interested in traditional high-level academics, while the students who attended Wykeham Rise were students who wanted to achieve in the arena of fine arts. Thus, there was a prevailing sense of identity at both schools that clashed at times (Eanes Interview).

In regards to the idea of the spectrum encompassing the traits of the different genders, or the split between the mind and body, the coordination period created a fairly balanced situation. In other words, the masculine, competitive aspect of the school balanced with the more feminine, emotional, collaborative end of the spectrum. The typically masculine aspects of the school (sports, hard sciences, etc.) balanced with the feminine aspects of the school (arts, softer sciences, etc.) There were extremely strong arts as well as strong, competitive academics. There were collaborative disciplines being studied at a high level as well as “hard sciences� being studied at a high level. In terms of the two phases of achieving equity, the coordinate period had achieved the first stage of the process. There was a balanced environment in which both gender personas were respected. However, the issue with this system was that there existed a large barrier between the two sides. There were not too many male students who participated in the arts program. There were not many girls in the coordinate situation that played sports at a competitive level. Thus, they had achieved a balance, but there were still strict identities rooted in each gender, with large barriers in the middle. Of course, a large reason for this was the societal norms at the time in which there were strict gender identities.

So, as coordination continued for a number of years, a couple of different outside trends began. First, many other previously single-sex boarding schools in New England were moving to coeducation. Second, many schools that had already gone coeducational proved that girls could fit into the mold of a traditional New England boarding school. Additionally, there were some sticking points in the coordination between The Gunnery and Wykeham Rise. There were scheduling issues, disciplinary issues, and, obviously, the issue of the very different cultures.

Lastly, certain girls from Wykeham Rise had proved that girls could manage the rigor of the

21

academics at The Gunnery (Eanes Interview). Thus, the writing was on the wall for a transition to coeducation in the coming years. What The Gunnery had to decide was how they would go about achieving this coeducation.

The two main options were to execute a merger between The Gunnery and Wykeham Rise, or discontinue coordination with Wykeham and allow girls into The Gunnery individually (Board Minutes). Obviously, there were positives and drawbacks to each of the different situations. The value in becoming coeducational with Wykeham was that they already had an existing number of girls. They had already had a relatively successful relationship with Wykeham. The Gunnery would also not need to build new facilities in order to accommodate the girls, as Wykeham already had their own facilities. The drawbacks to this plan were essentially the positives of going coeducational without Wykeham. First, The Gunnery would be in control and would not have to merge its power structure with the one at Wykeham. The Gunnery would benefit financially from being able to double its applicant pool with the existing financial framework. Lastly, this would eliminate the friction caused by the differences in the educational philosophies of the two schools (Board Minutes/Eanes Interview/Spence Interview).

The Gunnery decided to end coordination with Wykeham, and embark on the

process of revamping the school in order to enroll girls. The main reason cited for the decision was the “different educational philosophies” of the two schools (Board Minutes). In other words, the decision-makers at The Gunnery felt that it was not possible to have these two cultures, and ways of thinking, coexist. They felt that the schools “seek different types of students” so that it would be difficult to have one admissions department (Board Minutes). The Gunnery essentially assumed that both artistically driven and academically driven students did not exist, and that having artistically driven students would not work in the same school as academically driven students.

22

Chapter 4 | Early Culture of School One aspect that proved to be important in the transition to coeducation was the identity or ideological underpinning of the school. This foundational backbone of The Gunnery, or any other school for that matter, contributes to the development of a certain culture within the school.

Thus, considering that coeducation and gender equity is largely contingent on the culture of the school, the focus of school identity is vital in producing an equal environment between the sexes.

Therefore, I will investigate the ideological roots and themes behind the process of establishing the school's collective identity in order to further explain the co-educational endeavor at The Gunnery.

When Frederick Gunn founded The Gunnery, it was a school explicitly created to challenge the norms of traditional boarding schools in that era. During his time at Yale, Mr. Gunn was recognized as an athlete in some of the nascent days of university athletics. He was known for not being, perhaps, as concerned with his grades as he was with his more physical pursuits. This focus on athletics in some preference to academics seems to have weaved itself into the fabric of The Gunnery’s identity (Xu 5).

Mr. Gunn was very much focused on the mission of building student character during the boarding school experience. He felt that many of the other schools, with such stringent focus on academics in isolation, placed the larger mission relating to development of character as a more trivial matter (Xu 6). Gunn endeavored to change this approach fundamentally when he founded his boarding school. The focal point of the entire school was the development of character through a number of methods, including athletics. Gunn even valued athletics, because of its character-building influence, over the value of academics for the young students (Xu 5).

Because he valued sport so greatly, he insisted on being personally involved in the characterbuilding mission by actually playing on the baseball team with the students. He was extremely dedicated to the concept of creating an environment in which the development of character would be paramount above all missions. And, the exciting part about it was that the students could have fun while doing it.

The sports-centered school that Gunn created had a distinct culture in which “masculinity” was praised. For Gunn, there was a meaningful connection between having character and being manly or masculine. Thus, he developed a school in which the students were

23

expected to develop into men through character-building sports. This had the effect of associating physical “manliness” with the character-driven “manliness” (Xu 6). This sort of masculinity has often been referred to as “muscular Christianity.” Thus, the initial founding principle of the school created a culture in which a certain definition of masculinity was not only allowed, but encouraged and actively developed. This form of masculinity was central to the school's collective identity, embraced by its founder as his vision of character. Truly, The Gunnery was founded in the image of Mr. Gunn. Therefore, in an attempt to create an environment where students would develop into people of character, Gunn created a cultural norm of masculinity. As noted in the previous chapters, that this would not be the most conducive environment for females attending the school is apparent. None of them played on the sports teams, and, thus, they were not assimilated into this cult of masculinity. Therefore, this further substantiates the view of a school that was, in essence, an all-boys school.

It is important to note an inherent contradiction in the development of the sports model in relation to the idea of the ancient mind-body dichotomy. As discussed before, the mind aspect of the persona, which had traditionally been considered the masculine side of the personality, was held to be rooted in logic and reason, as opposed to the feminine, emotive side of the persona that is generally connected with the body. So, when sports become the domain in which males can tap raw emotion and physicality as a means to develop character, it produces a paradoxical and prejudicial preference for masculinity. The values that are traditionally encouraged in athletics seem to fit more closely with the mind pole of the spectrum, namely toughness, competitiveness, and discipline. So, it seems that sports are a way to train the boys into being, even more strictly, rooted in the masculine, or mind side, of the spectrum. The boys are confronted with situations that are rooted in the feminine side of the split, and are encouraged to apply the masculine traits that they have learned to conquer them. They learn to turn their raw emotion into discipline and toughness. Thus, they are taught that the elements on the masculine side of the spectrum are superior to those on the other side. Therefore, it seems that sports solidify the male persona and masculine traits as dominant, while simultaneously subjecting the feminine traits to the fringe of the culture.

As the school continued, it stayed relatively true to the mission of creating character through sports. However, as mentioned previously, the school was forced to become more accountable and responsive to stakeholders when a conglomerate of alumni purchased The

24

Gunnery in 1921, meaning that the school had to answer to a board of investors. Thus, in the 1920s, under the leadership of headmaster Hamilton Gibson, the administration transitioned to a phase in which they made the school more deliberate and accountable. It was no longer a period in which Frederick Gunn could make a decision for the school and approve it himself as he did when he owned it as a private enterprise. Essentially, the school was made to function more like a business and its identity became more corporate.

This movement to a more business-like atmosphere obviously had an effect on the culture of The Gunnery. In that era, business was necessarily, and by exclusion, masculine. Especially at the time this occurred, business and formal settings were typically masculine in nature, rooted in the male, rational side of the persona. No longer could the school function on a whim, as everything had to be approved by the broader group before it would go into action. This means that logic and reason were strengthened as the guiding principle of the prevailing value system at the school (Krimsky Interview). Thus, the aspects that were considered typically feminine, or the ones that would complete the persona, were ignored and excluded from school operations. Since the school simply added more masculinity to an already masculine system of education, the school became increasingly rooted in this aspect of the human personality.

From that era until the 1960s, everything seemed to stay relatively consistent: there were no major shifts in the culture of the school. So, coming into that turbulent decade, the school was still very masculine and traditional in its culture; as such, it reflected the environment of its formative years. But, as the counter-culture, "hippy" movement (hereafter used as shorthand for the 1960s emergence of a broad counter-cultural movement) began to shock the traditional structure of society, it sent waves coursing through the culture of the school. This was a movement counter to the traditional and conservative value system in which toughness and masculinity were expected from everyone. Instead, there was more sensitivity towards one’s emotions, and a relaxation of traditional roles and behavior. The school wished to accommodate this in order to keep their favor within the boarding school community. It was, in essence, an issue of competitive survival in the boarding school ecosystem; if unable to attract students from a rapidly changing culture, enrollment would decline (Eanes Interview).

Thus, the school lost part of the masculine culture that had been echoing through its walls for such a long time. At this point, the school had become one that was much more free, open and emotional — traits associated with the female persona (Eanes Interview). This was

25

furthered by the introduction of Wykeham when coordination began. Coordination was an effort to offer cross-institutional experiences between Wykeham Rise, a school for girls which emphasized artistic training in addition to academic subjects, and The Gunnery. It further changed the masculine cultural foundation of the school. Not only did it bring in female students who, through their socialization, brought the feminine traits and influence to campus, but also it brought in a "hippy" counter-culture. Wykeham had many teachers who were ideological members of the "hippy" community — people who did not conform to the notion of masculinity at the time (Lipham Watson Interview). Within the countercultural movement of the 1960s, there was a strong current of belief that many of society’s problems had their root in a maledominated culture of power-struggle and war (Deziel). Thus, the environment was totally different from The Gunnery at the beginning of coordination. Naturally, it became a melting pot and the schools came closer to each other in culture, or, at the very least, there was some spillover as boys at The Gunnery went for arts at Wykeham and girls from Wykeham came to The Gunnery for academics. Therefore, because the school changed with the times, the school moved away from the masculine culture that had been so pervasive there, and towards one that was more balanced.

However, a perception emerged that, as a byproduct of pandering to the cultural shift and the academic stagnation since the 1920s, The Gunnery was not on par with schools that it previously had considered peers (Choate Rosemary Hall, for example) (Miller Interview). This seemed to relate to a relaxation in formality and the erosion of academic rigor. So, this is where the school stood in terms of culture at the time of coordination, prior to the era of coeducation.

It can be argued that the cultural aspects of the school are largely determined by the goals of the school at the time, whether it be a formalizing or informalizing trend. For example, the school became more formal during the 1920’s when it was incorporated. Conversely, the school became less formal when the “hippy movement” affected it. Therefore, the backbone of the school (the fundamental ideas underpinning its mission), as well as the push to move the school in some direction (for cultural or competitive reasons), are extremely important in shaping culture, and prove to be fundamental in promoting gender equity at the school. Hence, as the school moves forward with this involved study of coeducation, The Gunnery administration must make the decision as to what the school will become. Because what we wish to become will

26

dictate how we purposely arrive at that destination. And, most importantly, the school will have to consider the effect on gender equity since it will strongly affect the outcome of its decisions.

27

Chapter 5 | Decision Point This decision to move away from any meaningful relationship with Wykeham proved to be extremely important in how coeducation at The Gunnery began. The Gunnery chose to move away from Wykeham for seemingly two different reasons: the logistical difficulty of having the two separate schools (the decision to move away from coordination) and the “different educational philosophies” (the decision to not combine schools) (Board Minutes). The logistical aspects of the argument are important. For example, the difficulty of scheduling buses back and forth, the difficulty of coordinating schedules for breaks, the difficulty in keeping track of everyone from two schools on two different campuses, as well as how to handle differences in policy such as disciplinary issues (Eanes Interview). These reasons are valid and make sense, but the other underlying reason proves to be very important.

The Gunnery had a sort of split personality as a school. The Gunnery was rooted primarily rooted in sports at the time, but was previously very academic and was very soon to be more academic again, while Wykeham viewed itself as an institution of the arts. Thus, as stated before, the coordination period gave the schools the opportunity to have both in one place. Boys and girls could now pursue both academic, athletic, and artistic endeavors while at the same school. However, The Gunnery determined that this would not be the course of action for the school in the long term, as they cited “different educational philosophies” as a reason to end the coordination. In other words, The Gunnery felt that it was not best to continue with the balanced environment between arts and academics/athletics, or, more generally, the mind and the body, or femininity and masculinity. The Gunnery did still have, and would come to develop, the aspects of the school that are considered feminine, but they were not nearly as strong as they were at Wykeham. Whether consciously or unconsciously, The Gunnery essentially put all the unique aspects that Wykeham brought to the school on the fringe, to some degree indicating that they were not aspects worthy of consideration. Not only does this mean that the “feminine” areas of interest were banished from the school, it meant that the value system treated traits on the body/emotion side of the spectrum as no longer important, somewhat reverting to prior tendencies. At Wykeham, the arts fostered a value in emotion and understanding. The other soft sciences and languages at Wykeham put an increased value on collaboration: a learning style on the body side of the split. By deciding to end the coordination with Wykeham and focus on the

28

masculine end of the spectrum, there were fewer students who focused on these disciplines and values. Thus, the value system began to neglect the body/emotion side of the spectrum.

So, when The Gunnery was embarking on the transition into coeducation without Wykeham, they were essentially deciding to have a masculine environment as per their strict identity rooted in academics and athletics, and the associated value systems. This transition meant that The Gunnery brought girls into the school with the idea of having them enter a masculine version of schooling. Thus, The Gunnery was essentially basing the transition to coeducation on the idea of a “gender-blind” approach. This is basically the decision to impose girls into the male model of education, instead of attempting to broaden the base of activities and values. The fact that the school chose a “gender blind” model reveals a tendency to be either logistical or very ideological. The decision to admit girls into a boys’ school means they either did not have enough time, funding, or will to introduce aspects that were more adaptive and advantageous to female students, or the school was steadfast on the idea that boys and girls were equally capable of achieving in the realm of a boys’ school. The nuance of this decision is that it implied that boys and girls have the same interests, as well as the same personality traits and value systems. Thus, this idea failed to recognize some of the nuance and complexity in this approach, despite the fact that it is, in some theoretical sense, admirable and virtuous to think that males and females are the same.

The first problem with this assumption is the fact that even though girls and boys might be regarded as the same and have similar capabilities, the school did not exist in a vacuum and still does not. By the time the majority of students come to the school, they have already on average been socialized into existing gender stereotypes. Thus, even though girls and boys could theoretically have the same interests, this was unlikely within the practical confines of the school: the world around it. Therefore, girls were brought into the school with the assumption that they would want to partake in the same activities as the boys, but this was simply not true based on the socialization of genders in the society at large, as per studies of coeducation in New England boarding schools.

The next problem was that by having all of these masculine disciplines and interests at the forefront of the school, it forced a masculine value system on the female students. Having competitive academics and sports as critical points of emphasis of the school created a culture in which success was based on how competitive, strong, and tough the student was. Thus, girls

29

who had been socialized to be intuitive, relational, and collaborative were at a huge disadvantage when entering the school. In other words, the girls entered into a patriarchal value system in which the traits they had learned to adopt, and embrace, when growing up were not valued as highly at the school.

Lastly, this was not simply an issue of the different genders; it was pertinent to an all boys’ school. By fully entering into the mind aspect of the spectrum, the students would essentially be repressing the other side of their personality. The only aspect of the school that would be conducive to developing the body side of the spectrum would be sports. But even this was designed to further confine the students to the masculine end of the spectrum. This would lead to the loss of different interests that might have been pursued otherwise. Furthermore, by having a certain patriarchal value system, the boys were taught to appreciate certain traits that do not encompass the entire dynamic range of the human emotional and personality spectrum. Thus, this decision essentially meant a departure from an attempt to create balanced people with a wide range of skills, values, and traits, and instead adopt a system in which boys were continuing to be socialized to the existing gender norms.

Once again, it is important to note that this does not seem to be a conscious decision made by The Gunnery to continue in a patriarchal value system. It was the byproduct of an attempt to give females an equal educational opportunity in the only system that the governing and managerial bodies of The Gunnery knew. Thus, it was simply a well-intentioned, but misguided attempt; it was not malicious, nor was it meant to keep girls from achieving success at the school.

Therefore, the decision to move away from the balanced environment of the coordination era accelerated the coeducational environment toward the masculine side of the spectrum, in which there was a patriarchal value system. One would think that, with the “gender-blind� approach, The Gunnery would at least allow the girls to enter into the good-old-boys club of masculine personalities and disciplines. However, this also was not the case, as will be described in the middle portion of this work.

30

Chapter 6 | Unequal Beginnings In order to fully understand the transitions to coeducation, it is important to figure out the ideological beginnings of the movement. One must not forget exactly what a New England boarding school is in its most basic form: as a private entity, the first principle and priority of a New England boarding school is economic viability. Without independent economic viability, the school would cease to exist since it does and can not receive government funding. Therefore, the majority of decisions that are made at a New England boarding school are rooted in financial planning, whether directly or indirectly. It is no different when it comes to the issue of coeducation.

Taft was one of the first New England boarding schools to commit to becoming a coeducational institution (Cobb Interview). In order to comprehend why the school made this decision, it is important to understand the factors acting upon the school at that time. First and foremost, New England boarding schools were beginning to fall out of favor in the educational marketplace (Cobb Interview). Across the board, New England boarding schools were experiencing a significant decline in both interest and applications. Traditionally, New England boarding schools had been perceived as feeder schools to the country's elite universities. Parents had reason to believe, based on historic performance, that sending their children to boarding school was a near certain way of gaining access for their children to the best American colleges.

However, beginning in the late 60s and early 70s, elite universities began to accept a wider range of students to their schools in an effort to broaden their social and demographic base. This meant that students from public schools around the country had roughly equal access to elite American universities as the students from the New England boarding schools. Enrollment declined and the economic viability of the New England boarding school business model was seriously at risk (Cobb Interview).

Another factor that challenged the viability of the school was the perceived pervasive coldness of the school. There was a study done in the late 1960s because Taft was concerned about the overall cultural trajectory of the school. Many felt that Taft was deteriorating due to a culture of discontent among the students. The study concluded that the reason for this was a certain closed-off nature of the Taft environment. They argued that sarcasm and a sense of coldness were the pervasive attributes of the school and that the students were not very happy.

31

The study offered as a solution the admission of female students in order to open up the closed system of Taft School and, thus, rid the school of the negative attributes that had eroded the student culture (Human System Taft).

So, while the school was faced with the threat of economic non-viability, it developed a solution, looking to coeducation as the cure for economic and cultural woes. The decision to become a coeducational institution meant that the applicant pool would be doubled. This would hopefully reverse the decline in applications and interest. Additionally, prospective students preferred to attend coed schools, so by having the school as coeducational, they attracted a larger pool of applicants. This was due to the fact that many universities had already become coeducational, thus beginning the forward trend of this new mode of education as the model of the future. Thus, since Taft was one of the first boarding schools to become coeducational, they received many more applications (from both boys and girls) (Cobb Interview). Furthermore, the decision to become coeducational solved many of the issues regardings culture that threatened the school. They felt that bringing girls into the school would open up the closed system that characterized the old Taft School. Further, they felt that the girls would add warmth as well as “grace and graciousness� to the school milieu. It is important to note that these girls were brought in with the intention that they would provide benefit mostly on a social level rather than on a more serious academic one. In other words, the girls were expected to make the school better for the boys socially, but they were not expected to help much in the more academic aspects of the school. Thus, the girls were already subjected to having value in a part of the school that would be viewed as more trivial by the long established standards of the New England boarding school world. It seems that achieving equality was a secondary thought that came after the primary intent that girls could enhance the male student experience. Since the enhanced male students would lead to more male enrollments. This is best characterized by the statement that girls would help the public image of the school, and thus bring in more prospective students (and more money) (Esty Letter to Faculty). Furthermore, allowing girls into the school would tap into the relatively unexplored girls’ boarding school market. Essentially, the girls were essentially a means to the end of enhancing economic viability and student cultural enrichment. Therefore, the entire transition to coeducation at Taft seemed to place girls as secondary citizens since they had been positioned as the sex that was there simply to help the entire institution instead of philosophical reasons.

32

A similar situation developed at Andover as they transitioned to coeducation. As numerous sources suggest, Taft and Andover had similar reasons for transitioning to coeducation. At one point, the Board of the girls’ school with whom Andover would eventually merge, Abbot, decided that the school should be raised academically to a level at which Andover would be motivated, or, at least, not disadvantaged, by a merger. So, Abbot’s Board handed the headmaster’s reins to an Andover graduate who was focused on the goal of merging the school with Andover. He knew that he was running himself out of a job, so he knew that he had to achieve this merger by any means necessary, even if the merger was not exactly equal between the two schools (Neklasson & Murree). Thus, even the idea for a merger between the two schools was vaguely reminiscent of the belief that the girls would be able to help the boys. When the school first entered into coordination with Abbot, which was just down the hill from Andover, it was said that this decision brought “relevance” to the school. At the same time, it was said that the coordination brought academic reputation to Abbot. Thus, the move seemed to be one in which there was more gained by Abbot than Andover. As the relationship developed, however, Andover began to see the economic in a lopsided merger that would benefit Andover greatly. It seems that the relationship with the school with whom they would eventually merge was not born out of the desire to be connected with the other school in a mutually beneficial relationship, but, rather, was a practical matter geared towards bringing more students to Andover. Once again, it seems that coeducation was brought about and motivated by a desire to enhance the experience of the male student body at Andover by bringing in more funds. Thus, the girls were already subjected to the fringe of the culture as they were used simply as a tool in order to help with the education of males. Intent does not always dictate the course of subsequent events, but certainly there is a danger that doing a good thing for the wrong reasons may ultimately create unintended negative consequences as compared to when one does the right thing for the right reasons.

The merger between Andover and Abbot found the two schools on very unequal footing.

The headmaster of Abbot described his school as “a bride in a marriage” implying that the school was lesser than that of Andover (Neklason and Murreee 18). Additionally, considering that the school chose to retain all students and faculty from Andover but selectively accepted a portion of faculty and students from Abbot who wished to attend Andover, the relationship was clearly not between equals (Dalton 15). This suggests that the union between the two schools amounted to a

33

takeover of one school by another. What this implies is that one school was forced to go to the other school in a subservient and compromised position. This meant that girls were forced to go to the boys in order to be accepted at the school. This perpetuated a system in which there was a stronghold of power around the male student body in which they and their values were dominant over their counterparts at the girls’ school. Furthermore, since the academic situations were highly elite at both Taft and Andover, the girls felt that they had to prove themselves to the boys in the first couple years of coeducation. This seriously damaged their confidence as they constantly felt to be under the microscope (Dalton 32).

A similar situation developed at The Gunnery in that the female students seemed to be brought in for the benefit of the male students rather than in the genuine interests of achieving equality between the sexes. By the time The Gunnery considered becoming coeducational in the mid-1970s, the times had changed in terms of the perception of females in education. Thanks to successful coeducational experiences in both universities and other New England boarding schools, it had become widely accepted that when females came into previously all-male institutions, they helped to raise the level of academic discourse (Eanes Interview). Thus, when The Gunnery was deciding whether or not to become coeducational, they had a different perception of what girls would bring to the school than the other schools did. As stated before, other schools felt that girls would bring softness to the human system and this would benefit the school. So, the schools utilized girls in order to better the school as it was — not to remake the school in some new image. Similarly, The Gunnery brought girls in to raise the academic level (in terms of college matriculation) of the school (Eanes Interview/Board Minutes). The other main aspect of the decision to become coeducational for The Gunnery was the economic factor.

After so many other schools had become co-educational, The Gunnery was losing a proportion of prospective students to schools who had already become coeducational. Furthermore, they had found success in terms of coordination with Wykeham, but felt that they could thrive financially without Wykeham. Thus, broadening the pool of applicants played a role in The Gunnery deciding to become coeducational. Girls were brought to the bastion of masculinity in this situation once again. The Gunnery was similar in that the girls were, as a first concern, brought in to benefit the males of the school. The advantageous difference between The Gunnery and the other schools was that The Gunnery did not bring girls in solely to enhance the social experience.

Rather, The Gunnery was able to appreciate the girls for the value that they would bring to

34

academic performance. Thus, the girls were not coming into the school in a situation in which they were already barred from the other serious aspects of the school.

Nevertheless, the girls were still brought in for the purpose of helping the boys’ school, rather than due to any inherent goodwill towards the female student or noble aspirations centered on educational equality and enrichment. This mindset seems to have, at the start, effectively marginalized girls to the fringe of the school experience. They were not viewed as laying claim to their educational rights as a co-equal partner, but as a helper to the opposite gender.

Furthermore, since the system of coeducation was necessarily bringing girls from outside to within the male-dominated culture and arena, it unintentionally, but necessarily, continues the dominance around male value systems. In other words, in a system in which girls must go to a masculine area rather than meet in the middle, it establishes the traits of the male as the dominant and subjects females who have been socialized to cultural norms to being second class citizens.

It is important to realize that this does not represent an initially malicious approach to this issue on the part of the schools. The schools did not, it seems, consciously favor the boys over the girls in their approach to this decision. When the school makes a decision as to whether or not they want to become coeducational, they do so from the position of a boys’ school. Thus, decisions have to be made on the basis of whether or not they would be good for the boys’ school, the entity that they represent. In a perfect world, schools would decide things based on morality and the philosophical reasons that underpin them. However, this would obviously present issues relating to fiscal viability and protecting the interests of the existing clients for which they have responsibility. So, it was not an active decision to make the girls second-class citizens. Rather, it was the school simply trying to do what was best for the people that already inhabited it. With that being said, it is still necessary to recognize the potential unintended effects of the decision-making process.

As such, the entire landscape and the motivation behind the transition to coeducation seem to be rather flawed. What appears to have occurred is that the transition to coeducation at New England boarding schools was removed from the pioneering front of the movement towards gender equality. The movement towards educational equality takes place because of the ideology behind it. Popular opinion said the first universities became coeducational primarily because of the philosophical reason that it was the right thing to do. However, as one becomes more removed from the leading edge of the movement, the downstream waters of this ideological

35

wellspring become muddied. Often times, instead of the transition to coeducation being rooted in truly wanting to achieve gender equality, it was rooted in practical matters such as finance. The effect was positive in that progress was made, regardless of original intent. However, this lack of proper intentionality often created flaws in the prevailing system that would not have been there had it been for a more ideological and thoughtful approach that incorporated the view of all stakeholders. Thus, many of the subsequent challenges in coeducation are rooted in the nascent flaws and intentionality with which New England boarding schools often approached coeducational reform.

36

Chapter 7 | Mr. Kern and Coeducation Another interesting aspect of the transition to coeducation at The Gunnery was the direction, and resulting culture, of the school that Mr. Kern, the new headmaster, attempted to usher in. The previous headmaster, Mr. Burgess Ayres, was not a very active figure in the extended Gunnery community. His job as headmaster at The Gunnery was his last employment before retirement, and he left the majority of the work to others in the community (Eanes Interview). He put a great emphasis on sports, being a man who had earned 12 varsity letters during four years at Harvard. However, many in the community felt that the school had been experiencing decline, as the college placement of seniors was exceedingly low by the school’s historical standards in the last couple of years before his retirement (1973-1976) (Board Minutes).

Culturally, the school was in a more relaxed place. Without strong leadership

from the headmaster, the school environment had lost rigor. Even in reports to the Trustees and at Board Meetings, Mr. Ayres was quite relaxed in his approach, preferring the style of informal meeting at times (Board Minutes). Wykeham’s less-formal “artsy” culture lacked much pressure or focus on the academic side of their mission. Since The Gunnery was in a period of coordination with Wykeham, The Gunnery was affected by this culture to a certain degree (Lipham Watson Interview).

Other academically recognized schools had already made the transition to a more business-like atmosphere and a structured and formal administrative infrastructure (Eanes Interview). These schools were run with cooperation in which everything was done in a very deliberate, purposeful manner. It is important to recognize that these schools were often larger than The Gunnery, in which there was not as much emphasis on a close and warm community. Thus, it makes some sense that The Gunnery differed because of its desire to achieve a warmer community that was more welcoming, rather than a colder, more business-like atmosphere. But, with the low academic achievement of those years previous, the school hoped to rejuvenate their academic reputation when they looked to hire the next headmaster of the school. The school intended to achieve this goal by hiring a new headmaster with a directive to foster a more business-like atmosphere to, among other things, achieve a more serious educational environment with hopes of transitioning to a more academically competitive school (Board Minutes). So, The Gunnery brought in Mr. Kern as an agent of change.

37

As Kern came into the school, he did so with the vision of restoring its academic prowess. At one point, he remarked that The Gunnery was “losing too high a percentage of students to the better schools” (Board Minutes). On another occasion, he noted how he was attempting to make a “push on academic upgrading.” To him, this meant he would be returning to the school’s tradition of academic excellence, as he stated that he hoped to be “renewing respect and pride to the institution” (Board Minutes). Thus, Kern looked for ways in which better academics could be fostered.

The main aspect of Mr. Kern’s policy — a policy that went hand-in-hand with the attempt to turn around the school academically — was the transition to a more business-like atmosphere. There were a number of instances in which he stated his intent to bring forth a more formal leadership approach. For example, he referred to himself as having a “more business-like style,” and further remarked how he attempted to institute a more business-like culture among the administrators and faculty (Board Minutes). He stated how it was difficult to achieve this, but that the teachers eventually adjusted to this new approach, thereby validating the observation that the school had become accustomed to a more relaxed atmosphere.

First and foremost, Mr. Kern had a more business-like relationship, and expectation, with the administrators and Board of Trustees. Compared to the reports of Mr. Ayres, Mr. Kern’s were very formal (Board Minutes). He also urged the other administrators to be more formal. It appeared that Mr. Kern hoped to develop an administration in which every decision would be made in a purposeful way, leading to an environment in which efficiency is maximized, and thus the school would achieve its greatest potential.

Mr. Kern held his faculty to extremely high standards. He wished for this focus on responsibility, formality, and accountability to be pervasive in all aspects of life at The Gunnery. Mr. Kern did not like the fact that certain faculty members were having members of the opposite sex from outside of the school in their apartments at night (Board Minutes). Mr. Kern felt that this was not conducive to the environment he was creating at the school, and thus outlawed this behavior. Having learned that a faculty member was carrying wine to their apartment, Mr. Kern was not pleased (Board Minutes). He endeavored to shape the faculty on campus to create a more prestigious learning environment. Furthermore, he believed in incentivizing performance as he hoped to raise money for teachers who had been doing exceptional work and give bonuses at the end of the year (Board Minutes). During the process,

38

he created a sense of competition among the faculty, which contributed to an overall culture of competition at the school. He proposed to the Board of Trustees that there be higher standards for the faculty. He stated that he would like to have an Exeter-type faculty at the school (Board Minutes). Thus, Mr. Kern’s vision for the school as a community of discipline and excellence was rather pervasive. Mr. Kern also attempted to attract talented students to the school to fit this model. One good example of this is one of the first female graduates of The Gunnery, Andrea Wells. She came from a middle-class family in a rural area where historically few students went to college. She would not have been able to afford the school if it had not been for significant financial aid. She was an exemplary student who finished high school in three years and then went on to study at Cornell University (Wells Interview). In a number of different ways, Mr. Kern attempted to bring The Gunnery back to its previous level of academic rigor and reputation.

Mr. Kern focused on making the school stricter in its disciplinary regimen. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, The Gunnery had a lot of “hippy” influence at the school, especially in the underground student social scene. This underground social scene was bubbling up in the school in addition to the relaxed attitude that the school held towards discipline. There were many disciplinary issues that resulted, and Mr. Kern felt that the school desperately needed reform. To this end, he hoped to institute a system in which students would be punished more severely for offenses thereby reducing recidivism (Board Minutes). He often used certain psychological tactics in order to instill a sense of fear in students who were in trouble. One student reported being brought into Mr. Kern’s office, and seeing just the silhouette of his face. This student surmised that Mr. Kern’s office had been arranged entirely around this principle of intimidation. The student believed that the desk had been arranged right in front of the window so that only the silhouette of Mr. Kern would be seen, in hopes of intimidating students (Lipham Watson Interview). Mr. Kern likely felt that this would help with the disciplinary issues, but it also points to the single-mindedness of Mr. Kern’s prestigious academic vision for the school. In summary, he wished to drive these illegal actions such as drug use and underage drinking and such students to the fringe, and underground, rather than being a visible and integral part of the school (Board Minutes). He had no delusions that high school students would universally refrain from such activities, but he did not wish for them to take precedence over or compromise academic performance. Therefore, once again, he attempted

39

to make the school academically prestigious through a more structured, focused, and disciplined regime.

Naturally, the principle focus and ultimate goal of Kern's actions was to achieve a prestige related to the overall academic performance of The Gunnery. As at any boarding school, a major factor in the academic performance of the institution was the selection of prospective student applicants. At The Gunnery, this too often amounted to accepting the trickle-down of students who were dismissed or rejected from the more elite boarding schools.

Often the choice would fall between an average student of seemingly good character vs the academically gifted, but potentially troubled, individual. Mr. Michael Spence, the Admissions Director in 1977, favored the person who was more average in terms of academics, but would be a better fit in the school. Mr. Kern, however, felt that it would be best to have the student who potentially had some character issues, but was very strong academically (Spence Interview). Furthermore, Mr. Kern rewarded academic success to a high degree, and had a special dinner for students who achieved high scholarship in the school. Mr. Kern valued academics to such a high level that when someone was caught cheating he had an interesting approach. He said to have told students caught cheating that they should place some “limits to ambition,� implying that the cheating was simply being a little bit too ambitious. Thus, he seemed to be of the view that the students should compete and do whatever possible in order to achieve academic success, and it was highly rewarded regardless.

Mr. Kern clearly felt that there was a strong association between his dominating presence and achieving academic excellence through the creation of a certain authoritarian environment.

In other words, Mr. Kern seemed to believe that to achieve this academic culture he must have significant power at the school. Through the Board of Trustees meetings, he was constantly seeking more influence. On several occasions, he assumed power that was not previously held by the headmaster at the school. For example, he was given permission to make the decision as to how many students were admitted into the school. The Board of Trustees historically held this authority, as it was a crucial decision to be made for the school (Board Minutes). There were several other occasions in which he made attempts to seize power as well. The most significant barrier confronting Mr. Kern in his quest for control was the existing power structure at The Gunnery. The prior headmaster, Mr. Ayres, had, in effect, transferred the major portion of his duties to others in the faculty, creating a de facto decentralization of the power structure. Thus,

40

when Mr. Kern entered the school, it was during a phase in which the typical duties of headmaster were executed by other members of the faculty due to the restructuring for Mr. Ayres’ essential absence. Therefore, by attempting to consolidate authority, he had to go against the existing politics and power structure that was already in place. This, as might be expected, created significant tension between the headmaster and the faculty (Spence Interview).

Mr. Kern seemed to view himself as “The Gunnery,” rather than as someone who was working for The Gunnery. Thus, instead of having a reverence for the school’s legacy and tradition, he felt that his vision was The Gunnery and wanted to remove everyone who opposed his reforms. In one specific instance, when discussing an issue of decision-making, Mr. Kern stated to one of his employees, “loyalty to The Gunnery is loyalty to me.” That employee resigned shortly afterwards (Spence Interview). Thus, it seems that Mr. Kern felt that the only way for the school to move forward was through his vision of the school. He did not employ much self-evaluation in terms of how he was affecting The Gunnery, but rather felt that his decisions were The Gunnery, and anyone not with him was against the school.

The faculty, especially teachers who had been there for a while, became very discontented with this leadership. This ultimately resulted in the firing, or resignation, of 119 years of faculty experience at The Gunnery. Mr. Kern was fired from his position two years later (Eanes Interview). Thus, the school was in a very tumultuous phase as the girls were being brought into the school. This undoubtedly had an effect on the success of the coeducation effort.

The policy and culture that Mr. Kern attempted to institute contributed to the missteps associated with early coeducation at The Gunnery. At the time, girls had largely been acculturated to believe

that business and official matters existed in the domain of men. So when

the school was almost entirely based on this rigid, authoritarian model, it had the effect of pushing female students to the fringe of the school. This did not give the girls the confidence to do well, which essentially cut them off in the pursuit of academic achievement (Dalton 142).

In terms of value systems, The Gunnery placed a premium on competition and performance, which were more typically male-oriented metrics of success. This focus on competition was found in many aspects of the community. An example of this was the aforementioned policy to give teachers bonuses based on their performance throughout the year. Additionally, there was a high value placed on academic success which created excessive competition. Girls were more likely to have been socialized to be collaborative rather than

41

competitive. But, this new culture of The Gunnery placed increasing value on competition, the male antithesis of collaboration. Thus, girls were once again put at a disadvantage in a patriarchal value system in which they had to act the opposite of how they had been socialized in order to achieve respect.

The net result of this system was a "chilling" effect on females, both faculty and students.

The radical change in culture at the school created an environment that was emotionally cold. Considering that female students were more likely to have been socialized to the warmer, more collaborative and congenial side of the mind-body split, the result was an unwelcoming and even hostile devaluation of their contribution. This cultural transition in the school further exacerbated the unequal beginnings that had characterized The Gunnery’s nascent effort at coeducation.

Once again, it is important to note that this was not malicious on the part of the school. Mr. Kern and other members of the leadership team genuinely aspired to rejuvenate the academic performance of the school to return it to its earlier prestige. Rather, the underlying fact is that in society at large, being successful as a school particularly in the setting of reform meant having a structured atmosphere, creating a colder, competitive environment, and putting greater value on the competitive and individualistic aspects of performance. In other words, within the patriarchal value system of the world from which the school was no privileged sanctuary, there were certain traits valued by male-dominated culture that devalued their female counterparts.

42

Chapter 8 | Co-curricular Policy The co-curricular policy is vitally important in developing an academic and nurturing culture at the school, especially with regards to the balance between the masculine and feminine influences. The simple definition of co-curriculars is quite interesting. Instead of sports and other after-school activities being extra-curricular, prep schools have defined them as co-curriculars.

That means that these activities are supposed to be experienced side-by-side with and, thereby, enhance the academic mission of the school. These activities are fundamental to the basic mission of boarding schools, which is to develop the whole person. Furthermore, these were the most heavily discussed and publicized aspects of the school. Even though New England boarding schools were largely established to be centers of academic excellence, the culture seems to be at least partially defined by the co-curriculars. Thus, discussion of policy regarding those cocurriculars is essential to understand exactly what schools aspired to, and will lead us into some of the main issues surrounding coeducation.

One of the main schisms between the policy of The Gunnery and the policy of other schools was rooted in their treatment of the arts, music, and drama. Essentially, The Gunnery decided to take a gender-blind approach when it came to females attending the school. In other words, The Gunnery felt that girls could simply be imposed into the male model of education, and thrive, be respected, and find fulfillment (Spence Interview). Taft, on the other hand, decided to take the opposite approach. Taft determined to institute policies that would supply the girls with disciplines that were considered typically feminine in order for them to thrive (Esty Letter to Faculty).

The gender-blind approach is basically an idealistic approach that assumes as a premise that women and men have the same abilities in the educational realm, and both will be able to thrive in the same school environment. This approach can also be the by-product of the lack of budgetary means to institute certain “feminine” elements. Or, it could simply be the fact that the school does not perceive the negative ramifications of this plan. The other approach is more pragmatic. The other approach recognizes that the school does not exist in a vacuum. Thus, it makes accommodations for how girls have been socialized. It adds the elements of a school that would be considered more “feminine” since the school realizes that girls and boys have been socialized in certain ways long before they attend high school.

43

The schools had to determine exactly what they wanted in the curriculum as well as these other areas of study. There were the typical academics, which did have engendered subjects. The main question to be addressed was what after-school activities would be offered for the students.

There were sports, which were considered to be a typically masculine discipline at the time.

There were also the arts, which aligned more closely with the body side of the spectrum. When I discuss the arts, I mean to include different forms of art such as dance and drama. There was music, which has been widely considered as both a male and female endeavor in the boarding school community. And, there was drama, which has also fluctuated between being a figment of the mind or body. However, in the recent transition to coeducation, it became an increasingly feminine discipline as it was the alternative to playing sports in many cases.

The difference in approach to gender equity is most evident when it comes to establishing co-curricular policy. As explained before, when The Gunnery decided to end coordination with Wykeham and embark on coeducation by itself due to a different educational philosophy, it essentially cut the arts program that had existed at the school. Their replacement was rather inadequate, with only one teacher, Nancy Sklavos, in charge of the formation of an entire art program with a limited budget (Board Minutes). It is interesting that only one person was added to teach all the arts including drawing, painting, sculpture, etc. That is analogous to having one person who coaches all of the different athletic teams. It is rare that one person is expert enough in all of those mediums of art to teach them. So, the arts program was created without a concentrated focus or effort to make it special. This is not surprising considering that The Gunnery decided previously that the arts were not essential to its identity. The Gunnery wanted academics to take precedent, and followed the traditional model of boarding school education by having sports in the afternoon.

“Bad.” “Interesting.” “Painful.” That is how some of the early females described their experience with the girls’ athletic program at The Gunnery (Various Interviews). There were several issues with the way that The Gunnery began the girls’ athletic programs. Other schools, such as Taft and Andover, suffered in similar ways. First, the school had to decide whether or not the girls would be brought in under the same athletic model as the males at the school. There were two main options under consideration: impose the girls into the male model, or implement what was considered a more typical female route in which the girls had a gym class throughout their academic day, and did not play sports in the afternoon. For example, Taft had a model in

44

which not every girl had to participate on a sports team while at the school (Cobb Interview).

Rather, they could simply enroll in a gym class inserted into the academic schedule.

The Gunnery selected the model in which girls were essentially required to play sports.

They decided this almost immediately, and then made appropriations and decisions in order to establish the equity between the programs. However, at the same time, there was some hidden bias and inequity in the approach to girls’ athletics. Essentially, The Gunnery (and the world around it for that matter) viewed the girls as not being as suited for athletics as the boys. During the decision-making process, The Gunnery acknowledged the fact that athletics would have to decrease when the girls came to the school, in order to make allowances for other aspects of the school that were considered to be more feminine (Coed Planning). Therefore, the girls coming to The Gunnery were expected to play sports like the boys at the school, yet at the same time, there was the expectation that girls were better suited for other activities at the school.

In terms of the approach to female athletics, there was a sort of half-hearted equality. It seemed as though the school felt that the way to achieve coeducation was to bring the girls into the boys’ model. However, it does not seem that the school fully believed in the ability of the girls to achieve success in this boys’ model, as they simultaneously failed in perceiving girls as inclined to sports. Thus, there was a sort of paradoxical way of thinking about the situation: they wanted to achieve equality (have girls play male sports or female versions of boys’ sports), but did not fully believe in equality of the sexes as they did not expect the girls to be as strong in athletics and thus did not have similar options in terms of quantity and quality. So, the girls were allowed into the previously male way of doing things, but then were not expected to fully achieve equality with the boys. Therefore, there was the inherent expectation and culture that girls would be second to the boys, as they were admitted into a masculine vision of school where the perception was that the girls would not be as good as the boys.

It is important to understand that this view was not unique to The Gunnery. Some of the other New England boarding schools that were becoming coeducational suffered from the same flawed viewpoint. Taft and Andover had similar approaches in that they did not appear to respect female athletics as much as male athletics, and had tangible instances of inequality in the sports programs. This was likely due to the similar view that females were better in alternative areas, and males would thrive in the realm of sports. The difference between these schools and The Gunnery, as will explored later in this chapter, was that the other schools provided for the

45

spectrum of traits, the body, such as the arts for the girls. The Gunnery, on the other hand, after cutting ties with Wykeham and having to build an arts program from scratch, had basically no significant program that was geared towards how females had been socialized at the time.

Furthermore, The Gunnery arts program was primarily introduced into the academic day whereas the other schools had arts as a co-curricular option for females. Thus, it was more important for girls to have a good sports experience at The Gunnery because that was all that was offered, whereas many of the girls at the other schools had options which were perceived to be more suited for girls.

Furthermore, the view that females were not as good at sports as males was not a construction of The Gunnery, nor of other New England boarding schools. Rather, it was the pervasive idea . The boys occupied the mind side of the mind-body split, while the girls occupied the body side of the split. What each sex was expected to be interested in and be successful at was usually based along these perceived lines of gender. In other words, there was the larger expectation in society that boys were supposed to be better than girls at sports, while girls were supposed to be better at the arts. Thus, it was not a culture peculiar to New England or The Gunnery, but rather a larger social trend from which The Gunnery was not exempt.

The difference in their approach to male versus female athletics was evidenced by the inequality of funding to the sports programs. Even in the 1980s, when In Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery, there was unequal spending on the sports teams (Birch).

The boys’ athletic programs had significantly more funding. Obviously, this could be largely due to the fact that there were far fewer girls than boys, but the lack of reasonable female athletic facilities suggested that there was not much money allocated to the establishment of female athletic programs. The boys’ program already had relatively nice, already-established facilities.

Even though it was understandable that less would be spent on girls’ sports, there was not an active funding effort to bring the girls’ sports up to parity with the boys (Birch).

The difference in expectations and funding manifested itself in three main areas of the athletic program: inequity of facilities, coaches, and competition level. These inequities then served to further the perception that boys were better at sports than girls, that female athletics should not be taken as seriously as male athletics, and that the funding should reflect this perception. Thus, there was a vicious cycle of inequity, which meant that the situation continued in the ensuing years.

46

The idea of an inequity of facilities was common among other nascent coeducational schools. For example, at Taft, there was an issue of the locker room for the girls (Cobb Interview). At Andover, the difference between the boys and girls athletic facilities were reported to be significant. A study of coeducation at Andover described the situation of athletic facilities as having a “separate but equal” strategy. Thus, girls’ sports facilities were separate from the already-existing, nice boys’ facilities and were not at the same level (Dalton 20).

Furthermore, sometimes certain aspects of the athletic facilities at these schools were essentially closed to the girls. For example, at Andover, there was a weight room that was intended for both genders, but the girls never used it because it was such an uncomfortable place. Girls reported being harassed while using the weight room. This reveals an issue regarding athletic programs in relation to gender equality (Dalton 86). Generally, people at Andover described the girls’ athletic program as “second-class cousins” in order to describe how weak the program was (Dalton 86).

Often times, boys’ locker rooms become the safe haven for overt sexism in the form of chauvinism. This is one destructive form of masculinity that schools should not allow to creep into their athletic programs.

The Gunnery had similar problems in terms of unequal facilities. The two most striking examples of improper facilities for the females at The Gunnery were the locker room and the volleyball court. One former student who was interviewed described the locker room situation as “lame.” The locker room shower, for example, was set up to be similar to the boys’ at the time: it had one stand in the middle with a number of shower heads coming off in different directions.

This meant that the girls had to stand facing each other when they showered. The girls did not like this set up as they preferred to have their own stalls so that they could shower in privacy.

This is likely true of prepubescent boys as well since they do not yet embody all of the traits of masculinity. The other major issue was the location of the sports locker room. It was located in what is now called the Memorial building, which houses arts and athletics. The locker room was located on the ground level of the building, with a window open to the walkway next to it. There were no curtains on the window, so people could walk by and see into the showers of the locker room. For these reasons, the locker room was simply not usable by the girls, and they preferred to go back to the dorms to shower (Lipham Watson Interview).

The somewhat ironic part of this girls’ locker room failure was that this topic was researched by the school. Mr. Michael Eanes travelled to different coeducational schools to

47

gather information on what worked for girls at the schools. One major aspect that was researched was the locker room for girls in the athletic facilities. Much research was done, but the school failed to achieve success. It is difficult to discern exactly what happened. It seems likely that the school simply chose not to follow through with the plans for a reasonable girls’ locker room as had been researched. The Gunnery did take the bid from the lowest contractor for the job (Board Minutes). So, it is slightly questionable how dedicated to this the school was. However, it could have been a financial issue as well.

Andover and Taft had similar situations in terms of locker rooms. The information that I received from Taft was rather in terms of specifics, but it was established that the female locker room situation had some issues (Cobb Interview). Furthermore, there were not Andover there were no female locker rooms at Andover. Thus, the other prep schools were not immune to the learning curve of female locker rooms.

Another facility that did not turn out well was the volleyball court. The volleyball games and practices were held in the Drama Barn of the school (what has now become EPAC), which clearly was not designed to be a volleyball court. The barn was so small that the court took up the entirety of the floor space. There was no room for out-of-bounds at all. Thus, girls’ volleyball was played in skewed conditions due to the lack of an actual volleyball court with reasonable margins (Lipham Watson Interview). Overall, the facilities used for the girls’ athletic program were not very strong. This lack of proper facilities for the girls contributed to the culture of athletics in which girls were perceived to be second-class.

When a In Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery in 1988 came out, it reported that 63% of female students and 100% of the female faculty at the school cited playing fields as better for boys than girls (Birch). Thus, since the school has only progressed since the beginning of coeducation, that likely means that the girls who came and toured The Gunnery before coeducation was implemented felt the same way about the facilities.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is that many of the girls did not expect to be high-level athletes themselves. A good example of this comes from the same study: nine girls who toured the school felt that the girls’ athletic program was too strong for them. This suggested that the school had attracted females who were not necessarily expecting to be serious athletes as well as deterring interest from strong athletes (Birch). Thus, it was not simply the

48

males at the school pushing the females to the fringe of the athletic scene. Rather, it was deeply ingrained in the culture that girls were not expected to do well at sports.

Another aspect of the program that demonstrated a serious flaw was the coaching situation. Taft and Andover had similar problems as well. Taft’s Mr. Richard Cobb described the interesting story of how he came to coach the Girls’ Varsity Basketball team. He was coaching the third boys’ basketball team, and stopped in one day to watch the Girls’ Varsity Basketball team practice. There were two female coaches on the team at the time, and Mr. Cobb began giving them some tips on how they could run the team better. Next thing he knew, he was coaching Girls’ Varsity Basketball (Cobb Interview). Furthermore, the girls’ soccer coach in the early years of coeducation said that he did not want to coach the team at first, but then grew to love it (Taft Papyrus). Thus, at Taft, there was a situation in which faculty were not recruited to coach girls’ sports. They were hired for other reasons, and then happened to fall into coaching girls’ sports. Thus, there was glaring inequity between boys’ and girls’ athletics.

Andover had a similar coaching situation for the girls’ teams. The female coaches were far less likely to be coaching competitive sports. At Andover, there were some shocking statistics regarding women versus men coaching competitive sports. For every one woman coaching more than one varsity or JV sport there were 5.8 men who were coaching the same amount.

Furthermore, for every one woman coaching one JV sport, there were 3.8 men coaching the same amount. Thus, there were not very many female coaches. The females coaches tended to not have as much training in the sports that they coached, so it was good that many of the coaches of female sports were men. But, there is an issue regarding female leadership and being able to look up to people that is beneficial that I will discuss more thoroughly later. (Dalton 82).

The Gunnery was similar in its lack of focus on having high-end coaches for female sports. The Gunnery appointed some males with college experience to coach the girls’ teams (Eanes Interview). In other situations, however, inexperienced females coached the teams. For example, Pam Taylor and Holly Schadler were coaches of the girls’ volleyball team. Pam Taylor had to read a book on how to coach volleyball because she had never coached before. Holly Schadler did not even include volleyball on her resume when coming to the school (Lipham Watson Interview). According to students who were part of the program in the early years of coeducation, the coaches tried very hard, but they were simply not knowledgeable. Thus, the

49

coaching was either a good coach who happened into coaching girls’ teams, or one that was not knowledgeable. Rarely was a coach specifically recruited for a girls’ team.

One could question if the boys’ coaches might have been in a similar predicament. That was certainly true sometimes, as there were definitely sub-par coaches for every sport. However, the study done in 1988 at The Gunnery indicated that the proportion of males who had college experience with the sport that they coached was significantly higher than the female sports coaches (Birch). Furthermore, the coaches for the boys might not have been outstanding, but they were certainly more qualified than the female teachers. Additionally, as discussed in the Andover report on coeducation, many of the coaches started out as lower level coaches and learned how to coach and understand the game before transitioning to higher levels (Dalton 84).

Thus, the girls’ program suffered at the schools partially because they did not have coaches who had been trained at the lower levels. Either way, there was inequity in the coaching status of boys’ and girls’ sports, which pushed girls to the fringe of the school’s culture.

Lastly, there was a different culture and expectation from the female sports at The Gunnery, Taft, and Andover. For example, Mr. Cobb said that when coaching girls’ basketball, it was much different than the coaching of boys. He remembered a couple of differences between boys’ athletics and girls’ athletics. First, he discussed a time in which a girl on the team broke her fingernail during the game. Everyone else on the floor (both teams) immediately stopped playing, and came over to look at the injury. Thus, it appeared as though girls were not as serious about winning the game. The other difference that he cited was that boys would hold onto a loss forever, but girls would brush it off much quicker (Cobb Interview). This also pointed to the perception that girls did not value their sports with as fierce an intensity as the boys did. The other explanation is that this is simply a gender difference in moving on from the losses with the necessary lessons. But, that implies an internal process, whereas the boys were often influenced by outside factors. In one interview, a Gunnery alum noted that there was more outside pressure from other students as well as relatives and alumni (H. Rowe Interview). The difference in handling losses might point to the difference in outside pressure felt by boys and girls, which indicates that the girls received less outside pressure. This suggests that girls were not as invested in the sports culture as the males of the time. This was also evidenced by the Taft Papyrus, the main publication of the school. In every paper, there was a sports section. In it, the boys’ sports consistently took precedent over the girls’ teams. There was typically a whole page of articles on

50

boys’ sports, sometimes even on JV. Then, at the end of the second sports page, or in the corner of the first, there would be one article about girls’ sports teams. Furthermore, when there was a piece written about sports in general, the articles used were masculine. This all suggested that girls’ sports at Taft were simply not taken as seriously as the boys (Taft Papyrus). The girls’ sports were not part of the entire sports culture of the school, as the evidence suggests that they were seen as inferior to the male sports.

At Andover, the girls were barred from the culture and excitement of athletics at the school. For example, during the week leading up to the games with Exeter, they had what was called a Rivalry Week. There were various rallies and other traditions that took place. One year, the girls from Andover thought that it would be appropriate that they were part of the Rivalry Week themselves, but the boys kept them from it (Dalton 82). Thus, the girls were allowed to play sports at the school and did, but they were not accepted into the full culture of sports. That sentiment trickled into their play, resulting in what seemed like less serious and competitive efforts when it came to the sports.

The same happened at The Gunnery. One student who was involved in the early years of The Gunnery girls’ athletics remarked that the girls did not have the same level of competition.

She said that the boys had a sort of external pressure from parents and peers, but the girls were not pressured in that way (H. Rowe Interview). Another girl stated that the girls tried to be as competitive as possible, but it was simply different than the boys’ sports at the school (Wells Interview). Furthermore, A Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery, a study done in 1988, stated that the male faculty at The Gunnery were more invested in sports than the females (Birch). Thus, there was an atmosphere that found girls physically playing sports, but in which they were not involved in the entire culture. Another interesting piece of information that pointed to this idea was the difference in the number of injuries at the health center from the different genders. The same study found that the girls were far less likely to have injuries relating to sports than boys (Birch). This pointed to the perception that girls did not take the athletics as seriously as the boys. The difference in injuries could, however, simply be the result of girls’ sports being primarily non-contact. But, this, in and of itself, reveals another issue in terms of girls’ sports: by not having contact sports for the females, the implication is that the girls are not tough or strong enough to handle contact sports. This perception of females further substantiates

51

the point that girls had different expectations of them within the athletic program, and thus were not fully allowed into the masculine realm of athletics.

One telling aspect was the favorite sports of some of the people who attended The Gunnery during the early years of coeducation. For example, Heidi Rowe was a student at The Gunnery during the first two years of coeducation (H. Rowe Interview). She was an amazing athlete coming from the local public high school, Shepaug. She had earned all-league honors in field hockey, and qualified for Boys’ States in swimming. When she came to The Gunnery, she was forced to give up swimming as it was not offered at the school. When she played on the field hockey team, she was, by far and away, the best player on the team. She became frustrated with the other players and the coaching staff who were not at her level. This led to her feeling undervalued at field hockey. Strangely enough, her favorite sport while at The Gunnery was basketball, a sport she had never played before. Her reasoning was that the sport did not have to live up to any level of expectation, or seriousness, because she had never played before. Her friend, Ann Lipham Watson, faced similar challenges in the athletic realm. Her favorite sport while at The Gunnery was crew. The crew team was coed in which the coaches coached both the girls and the boys. Ann Lipham Watson cited their coaching ability as one of the reasons that crew was her favorite sport. These two anecdotes bear witness to the entire culture of sports at the school. For serious athletes, the best experience was when they were involved with the boys’ team where the competition was tangible, or when they were playing a sport that they had never played before because they would not know the difference. The female student-athletes seemingly wanted to take sports seriously, but only found comfort in not taking the sport seriously or being part of a boys’ team.

These programmatic properties led to different expectations, competition, and culture between the two genders. With all of these factors coming together, the girls were second-class citizens in the sports realm of the school. They were allowed to participate, but they did not enter the culture, competition, and seriousness of the boys’ sports.

Sports are critical in determining the culture of a boarding school. Out of all the aspects of the schools that I researched, sports dominated the information sources. This is because there is at least some public discussion and official reporting of sports in the schools. Furthermore, culture can be determined by the less-official aspects of the school. In other words, the academics do not monopolize the culture of the school as sports take some of the attention since

52

sports are played in the afternoon, are fun, and are accepted largely by the student body. Sports are fun to talk about with friends and develop a sense of pride among the students and alumni.

Academics, on the other hand, are at times viewed as boring. Thus, the culture of the school (especially in the afternoon sports model) is largely determined by the athletic scene at the school. Since the sports scene at The Gunnery severely pushed girls to the fringe, that compounded with the cultural subjection brought about by different aspects of the school. Sports aggravated an environment in which the females were already setting up to be second-class citizens, mere afterthoughts in the structure and fabric of the institution.

Now, it is important to discuss the irony that sports reflect the masculine aspect of the school. In terms of the mind-body split, Americans tend to think that sports seem to align more with the mind side of the equation. People always talk about how athletes must be smart in order to be in the good game situations. Furthermore, toughness is expected out of masculine athletes and is perceived to be one of the most prideful and important athletic characteristics. So, it is typically constructed to be masculine, aligning with the mind side of the split. It makes sense since sports are seen as very physical and men have been perceived to be dominant by most physiologic metrics such as strength and speed. Furthermore, there had been some pseudoscience making the false claim that it is not healthy for females to partake in physical activity around the time The Gunnery became coeducational (Dalton 58). It is reasonably clear, then, why sports are considered a masculine discipline. However, it is important to understand the irony of these perceptions. Even though people claim that sports are all about being logical and smart in the game, yet, as most of the top athletes will admit, it is more about intuition. The best athletes argue that they do not consciously think during the game as they are simply feeling the game.

Furthermore, it is all about collaboration with teammates, which is a very feminine trait. Thus, it seems very ironic that sports are largely perceived to be rooted in masculine values. Even further, it is interesting to evaluate exactly what sports teach to the boys that play them. At the root, sports are aligned with the body side of the equation, yet the rhetoric involved with sports now is one that stresses qualities and attributes of the other side of the equation. People stress the importance of discipline. People stress the importance of being logical in one’s actions. People stress being tough. So how did we depart from the inherent values of sports: emotion, intuition, etc.? What seems to be occurring is that sports have become a way to solidify and encourage values that are typically masculine. Athletes are supposed to enter into the realm of the body, but

53

are praised for keeping their values rooted in the mind side of the split. Sports essentially teach the males that when they are found in situations dominated by the aspects of the body side, they must stay strong and bring forth their values from the mind side of the split in order to prevail.

Sports teach males that the mind side of the split is the dominant one. Sports teach males that patriarchal values should be brought forth whenever possible. Sports teach athletes to further abandon the mind/emotion side of the split.

As mentioned before, the main difference between The Gunnery and schools like Andover and Taft, was that The Gunnery did not focus on developing disciplines that were typically feminine. For example, Taft offered gym class during the day as an alternative to sports, leaving the afternoon open for what would be considered more typically feminine disciplines. Specifically, Taft offered bike riding, horseback riding, modern dance, and figure skating as options during the afternoon in order to accommodate the girls. Even though Andover had a largely gender-blind approach to coeducation, they instituted programs such as dynamic theater, music, and dance programs in the afternoon.

The Gunnery, on the other hand, did not focus on the disciplines that might typically be considered feminine. Despite talks to offer more feminine after-school options, the school never came around to offering them. It is unclear exactly why The Gunnery did not make the same accomodations for girls coming into the school. One member of the administration at the time said it was because the school was entering into uncharted waters with coeducation (Spence Interview). He said that there was not a scientific approach to coeducation. The idea was, in the first couple of years, to reach a critical mass in terms of girls at the school. There was not a conscious decision to deny a full experience to female students. Rather, they simply focused on achieving the desired enrollment (in support of the boys), and then moving on from there when the issues would be defined by the females’ experiences. Another possible explanation is that the school was not in a place financially to begin new programs at the school. They had already invested significant money to make the basic transition to coeducation, and there was likely a shortage of funds to institute further programs for the girls (Board Minutes). One other reason is a dedication to what administrators found to be a defining characteristic of the school: competition. At The Gunnery, it has been an oft-held belief that sports are necessary to teach the students the lessons learned through competition. However, what this view failed to recognize was that the aspects of the school that would be considered “feminine� also have competitive

54

roots. For example, competition is intrinsic to dramatic and musical productions. There is the obvious competition in awards shows and gaining recognition outside of school for the arts. And, there is the competition among the members of the cast for the different roles in dramatic productions, orchestras, and bands. This competition is true among all of the potential “feminine� afternoon programs. For dance, it is the internal competition among the team as well as competition at shows. And, even more intrinsic, is the competitive psyche to improve oneself..

This is inherent in practically any activity that people take seriously. The school, however, shies away from these more difficult-to-discern manifestations of competition in favor of the more obvious, tangible difference on the sporting score board.

Either way, The Gunnery took the gender-blind approach and did not make many accommodations for feminine disciplines in the school. The Gunnery offered drama programs in each of the terms. They also offered some form of after-school arts, but it was minimal (Coed Scheduling). Any student who did not participate in either of these two programs had to play sports. As mentioned previously, this differed with Taft and Andover, who instituted several other programs so that girls would not be forced to play sports.

The arts program was integrated into the daily academic curriculum, and this seemed to have an interesting effect on its potential to influence the culture of the school. As mentioned before, most public relations for these schools at the time were about the co-curricular aspects which occurred after the academic day, namely sports. So, by having the majority of the arts programs during the day, this meant that they were grouped with the academic aspects of the school. Although important in establishing a culture at the school, academics do not seem to be as definitive as athletics. Academics are an official part of the school and are required of everyone, whereas the after-school program is more dependent on student choice and typically was more enjoyable. Thus, arts affect the culture more profoundly if presented as a choice rather than forcing them to participate during the academic day, as per typical teen rebelliousness.

It is also important to note that Taft and Andover were just starting their new cocurricular policy with female students. There was no program before-hand at either of the schools, but they made it a focus to implement these new programs in order to make the girls comfortable and accepted in the new school environment. At all of the schools that I researched who were transitioning to coeducation, the programs of typically feminine disciplines were not very strong. At Taft, there was much criticism of the feminine programs at the school. Many felt

55

that the music and arts programs had been slighted in favor of academics and athletics (Taft Papyrus). Modern dance was not considered to be a strong program either. The Gunnery also suffered from struggling arts programs. Birch’s 1988 study of coeducation found that the arts, music, and drama programs were all considered to be weak. The arts program was considered to be one of the two weakest programs in the school (Birch). Therefore, not only were there not many feminine disciplines numerically at The Gunnery, but those that were offered were not perceived as strong.

Thus, with struggling arts programs at The Gunnery, the school did not attract students who were serious in those disciplines. Birch’s A Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery found that boys who came to the school were not interested in drama, while the girls were not very interested in the arts (Birch). Thus, a self-promoting cycle developed of poor arts and other feminine programs.

In terms of the spectrum of culture at a school ranging between the extremes of ultramasculine and ultra-feminine, the co-curricular policy was essential in deciding where the school stood with regards to balance. Since The Gunnery did not have many aspects of the feminine, or body side of the spectrum, the dominant culture became one that was rooted in the masculine disciplines. Similarly, even though Taft had many of the feminine disciplines, and because they were not strong, a culture developed that was also masculine as it was rooted in sports and other masculine aspects of the school. The co-curricular policy served to create a culture in which girls were marginalized and pushed to the fringe, and boys continued to enjoy a privileged position at the forefront of school culture.

56

Chapter 9 | Academic Policy During the first several years of coeducation, the ratio between boys and girls at The Gunnery was (and still is) uneven. In the first year, there were 40 girls in a school of 190 students (Board Minutes). The effects of this imbalance between the sexes, especially one as lopsided as this, were numerous. One of the detrimental effects was imbalance in the classroom.

The effect of girls being the minority in the classroom hindered their learning and the development of a healthy coeducational model (Dalton 31-32).

At this point in time, the main frame of reference used for defining issues of sexism was whether or not overt sexism was occurring. Since there were not any major reports of sexism at The Gunnery, the perception was that everything was going well. However, many forms of gender discrimination were much more deeply ingrained than simply being overtly sexist as it is popularly conceived. One of the main areas suffering from this was academics (Dalton 31-32).

There have been a number of studies demonstrating how being the minority in the classroom has negative effects on females. Boys tend to be louder and even boisterous in the classroom than their female counterparts. This has been generally associated with the difference in learning styles attributed to boys and girls. Generally, boys are more likely to manifest competitive behavioral traits in an academic setting, while girls tend to be more collaborative (Dalton 2). Where this tendency is not properly managed in the classroom, the net effect disadvantages female students. More generally, the studies suggest that being outnumbered in a classroom setting undermines the self-confidence of girls in the classroom. Furthermore, there is a phenomenon called “fear of success� in which girls are afraid of being successful in classes in which they are outnumbered, due to a fear of having too much attention from their peers (Dalton 31). Furthermore, when there are more boys than girls in the classroom, this often leads to girls being judged by the stereotypes that play prominently in society (Dalton 32). Then, since there is not much opportunity to interact with females, this often contributes to the continuation and reinforcement of that stereotyping. Additionally, researchers have found that boys tend to selfsegregate in classes, which makes the entire situation more problematic (Dalton 32).

The effects of the imbalance relate to the idea of the split between the mind and body, and how this relates to the stereotypes of gender. The competitiveness of boys in the classroom relates to the mind side of the equation as it is a typically masculine trait. Competitiveness 57

relates to toughness (something typically considered a positive trait in a male and negative in females) as students have to be tough to handle the cutthroat environment presented by their peers in class. Collaboration, the more commonly associated feminine learning style, relates to the body side of the equation. Girls are considered to be more in touch with the emotional side, thus not seeking competition with their peers and classmates for self-validation, or at least to a lesser extent than the boys. Both are present and possible in different students, yet some are valued in boys while others are valued in girls by faculty members. So, even if a girl tends to value competitiveness internally, adults might discourage her from valuing it in favor of a more feminine trait like collaboration. Thus, members of both genders become rooted in one side of the personality over the other, which can have detrimental effects since they are no longer complete people.

There were a couple of dominant issues that emerged in academics in the early years of the new co-educational arena. Most simply, there was the perception that certain subjects were intrinsically not gender neutral in terms of aptitude. This had a profound negative effect on interest, aspiration, and confidence. Not surprisingly, this discouraged certain academic pursuits based on gender. The imbalance between the sexes in the classroom contributed to girls not feeling comfortable and not performing to the best of their abilities (Dalton 31-32). This imbalance most often happened in classes in which there were more males than females (math and physics, for example). Additionally, the unique value systems in the different classes pandered to one gender or the other. For example, math was a subject in which students typically worked individually, and competed with each other to get the best grade possible. This was better suited for males as they had been socialized to be competitive and exhibit the character trait of toughness. Other classes, such as English or the languages, were more collaborative. The majority of the time, students worked together to find the right answers to the problems. This was more conducive to the way girls had been socialized (the body side of the equation). What ended up occurring was females not doing well in classes that were oriented to the masculine side of the equation (Dalton 31-32). The opposite was also true, but those classes in which males were effectively disadvantaged were not typically required classes or were not viewed to be as important as the classes that disadvantaged female students.

Both Taft and Andover manifested many of these issues in the early years of coeducation. At Taft, the classes were described as very masculine in their learning style and

58

classroom environment. There was a study that was presented to the school showing how males typically monopolized the speaking time in classes. The teachers then responded by making attempts to prevent the boys from monopolizing and taking control of the class (Cobb Interview). Furthermore, an extremely competitive environment characterized the Taft academic arena, as it was quite rigorous. The curriculum at Taft was also heavily skewed toward science and math (Human System of Taft). When girls of that era had been socialized to manifest traits on the body/emotion side of the split and like disciplines such as English and art, they were not valued as highly as the typical socialized male who had learned to be competitive and thrive at math and science.

There were similar issues at Andover during the early years of coeducation. At Andover, the main issue that emerged was the development of barriers between the different disciplines along gender lines. Boys tended to enroll in advanced math, science, and computer classes, while the girls were more inclined to take advanced French, women’s studies, and psychology courses. This occurred despite the fact that in the lower level classes of math and science, girls and boys achieved at very similar levels (Dalton 62). Thus, it seemed that there was a difference between perception and reality. In reality, males and females were equally acclimated to achieve and take high-level courses, yet there was the perception that girls were not as successful at some subjects as boys and vice versa. The very interesting thing about Andover in the early years of coeducation was that the majority of prizes for Math, Science, Classics, and music went to boys. Yet, the prizes for subjects that have been considered typically feminine went to both boys and girls (Dalton 70). This seemed to be because the male characteristics (e.g. being competitive and tough) translated better into the feminine areas of study, than the feminine attributes (collaboration) translated into the masculine areas of study. Furthermore, this disproportionate distribution of awards could suggest that the committee’s seats for academic prizes were primarily held by males. Thus, boys possessed the traits that would dominate in the context of a patriarchal system over the attributes that the girls typically possessed at the time. The other main issue that was present at Andover was the issue of canon in certain classes being skewed towards the males. In other words, the examples in science textbooks or the books read in English class were skewed to the masculine end of the spectrum (Dalton 55). For example, science textbooks would depict all physicists as male while all nurses were female. An example in English was where the system of canon (or the works that a class reads throughout the year)

59

was primarily comprised of novels widely accepted in the high school and college canon system in the country. So, since most established works of the canon told stories of white, wealthy males, there was not much discussion of minorities or women. This token representation or total lack of representation was detrimental in a number of ways. First, token representation led to the perpetuation of gender stereotyping within the school system. Second, not being present in the canon system pushed females to the fringe of the school, and subtly established males as the dominant group. This issue of canon was largely possible due to the fact that the academic situation at Andover (like other schools) was more decentralized than one might expect. The way that classes functioned was not decided at a centralized level, but rather by the different department heads (Dalton 56). Thus, for example, the school might be in favor of a canon in English class that represented both sexes, but the head of that department might be resistant and desire to teach English a certain way, and not want an issue of canon to interfere.

The Gunnery suffered from similar problems to those of Taft and Andover. One might argue at this point that The Gunnery was not as much of an academically charged environment as the other schools, and thus it would be different. That was true to some degree, but that does not paint the entire picture. As one administrator from The Gunnery said, it was not a very academic environment at the school. It was not a factory for high-end students, but rather was an individualized environment that was well suited for everyone (Spence Interview). However, it is also important to consider the way that the leadership was pushing the school at the time. As discussed before, when Kern took over the school, the main goal was to revamp the school to create an academic powerhouse that would rival some of the more academically prestigious schools. So, even though the school was not the same as Taft or Andover, it was moving in that direction. Furthermore, many of the issues we have discussed are not dependent on the school being an ultra-competitive environment.

When I conducted interviews with alumni and faculty from the time, the majority of them said that students were not pushed into different disciplines based on gender, and that they did not perform better or worse based on gender. Everyone described a simple system in which students who were good at math did well, and students who were not, did not do well (Various Interviews). Then, when I reviewed Birch’s 1988 study of coeducation at the Gunnery, I found different results. Boys were more likely to take high-level math courses at the school than girls. Boys and girls achieved the same in early classes for the discipline, yet boys went on to

60

take more higher-level math classes than girls. In terms of academic prizes, the recognition for stellar academic work seemed to be defined along the lines of gender. For example, in mathematics, 90% of the awards went to males. This is a very striking statistic considering that boys and girls were found to achieve fairly equally in the subject. Furthermore, 80% of the prizes in science went to males (Birch). Thus, despite individual accounts arguing that there were not disciplines dominated by certain genders, on average, there were differences between the genders, and their accounts were simply misperceptions.

Furthermore, during the first year of coeducation, there was a situation that pointed to some academic issues relating to gender. There were two strong females who had done well in math class throughout the entire year. Then, in the spring, when it was time for them to take precalculus, the girls did not want to take the class. When the math teacher asked them about it, they said that it was due to the fact that the boys were too overbearing in class. Essentially, the female students felt overshadowed in the class by the boys who were much louder and more competitive. Thus, the school decided to have two different sections of pre-calculus in order to allow girls the chance to learn how they wanted: in a more collaborative fashion (Small Interview). This splitting of pre-calculus classes at The Gunnery was something that continues to this day.

When confronting this intricacy, I came to appreciate the subtlety of the situation. When individual students were good at one subject or the other, it did not seem to come down to gender, yet when viewed on average, it did. This suggested that there was a less obvious issue than overt sexism. It seemed that since students were not barred from a certain discipline on the basis of sex, they did not view it as an issue of sex. Instead of overt sexism, it seemed like the presence of a gender imbalance as well as a certain value system was responsible for this. When there was a gender imbalance in the classroom, girls were in an uncomfortable situation, causing a decrease in performance. There was the perception that this fear and anxiety was manifesting as poor performance in the class. In other words, the girls thought that they were not doing well in the class because of the gender imbalance, which created emotions and fear and anxiety in the classroom. Furthermore, there was a value system in some classes that preferred one socialized gender to the other. As mentioned before, math classes were often rooted in competition as the work was very individualized and everyone tried to do well. This favored to the socialized males who, on average, had these traits more abundantly than females. Similarly, in classes that were

61

considered typically feminine like English, collaboration was encouraged and having an understanding between classmates is necessary. This favored the way that girls have been socialized. Thus, there was an underlying favoring of one gender over the other based on the way that the discipline had been approached in the classroom. Therefore, it seemed that girls were not confronted with overt sexism keeping them away from certain disciplines, but rather with subtle endemic value judgements in classrooms and the imbalance affecting their performance on average. This clearly affected the future educational landscape of girls at the school. Having been pushed into certain gender-compatible disciplines and having lost confidence due to a gender imbalance, girls moved forward with a different point of view.

Furthermore, since it was such a deeply rooted, not conscious phenomenon, the girls were not able to consciously move beyond a system that worked against them or strongly articulate their position. Rather, from their perception, it was simply not being talented enough, when it truly came down to a difference in values.

It is interesting to note the way in which males have been socialized to dominate females in the classroom setting. Thus, the presence of males in classrooms with girls often had a detrimental affect on girls, no matter the subject matter. Also, it is important to realize that the subjects that the boys are perceived to be more naturally inclined to are the ones that will lead to more career potential. Especially at this time, the careers that most people pursued were in the more concrete and practical disciplines that were often rooted in science and math. Furthermore, the economic system was one that favored competition and toughness over collaboration and sensitivity. Thus, even though girls were better at some disciplines than the boys, these disciplines were considered to be the fickle ones. The disciplines that girls thrived in were considered to be less serious than the ones boys dominated. Therefore, even though the system did seem to be equal in terms of favoring girls over boys at certain times and boys over girls at others, boys remained the dominant sex due to a more dominant socialization.

Therefore, like the co-curriculars at The Gunnery, the academic aspect of the school further pushed girls to the fringe. Girls were attracted to and performed better in the areas that were considered as societally less important. Boys remained dominant due to the learning model that was promoted in many of the disciplines. Thus, what was beginning to form was a situation in which the girls were subjected to the fringe of the school in every aspect, functionally

62

marginalized and disempowered. It was not the ideal situation for coeducation and certainly failed to live up to an aspiration for gender equity in education.

63

Chapter 10 | Social Life and Gender The crux of the social scene at The Gunnery during the early years of coeducation was based on the ratio of boys to girls. There were 190 students in the school and only 43 of them were girls in the first year (Board Minutes). Therefore, only twenty-one percent of the student body was female. The other schools imbalances. At Andover during the first year of coeducation, out of 1178 students in the school, only 346 were girls (29.4%) (Roberts). At Taft in the first year of coeducation, the fall of 1971, there were 407 boys and 82 girls (16.8%) (Gilchrist).

The main result of the imbalance was a pressure for girls to act a certain way in order to be respected in The Gunnery’s social scene as a minority. This is not limited to girls being a minority, but rather applies to minorities in general. One very interesting case was at Taft during the early 1970s. There were a small number of African American students at the school. As part of the ABC program, of which Taft and The Gunnery were founding members , some of them came through a program to bring talented, underprivileged students to prestigious New England boarding schools. Throughout their time at Taft, these students often felt pressured to act a certain way because they were a minority. The black students at the school wanted to act “black” because that represented their cultural identity. However, they felt pressured from the successful blacks of the world to “act white” in order to be successful. What these students described was the need to decide between two conflicting behavioral modes. Either they had to become “superniggers” in their own words, or become “white.” In other words, the African Americans at Taft had to either embrace their background as their sole identity, or they had to assimilate into the “white” culture at the school and deny their black identity. Thus, often times, they had to embrace their ethnicity and build their identity around it, slowly giving up other aspects that might not mesh with being stereotypically African American. Or, they would attempt to assimilate with the majority of the school by acting a certain way to become “white” (Taft Papyrus).

This minority experience was repeated in several schools when transitioning into coeducation. At the time many schools were transitioning to coeducation. There were large-scale movements that suggested women could be both in the household and pursuing education and a career. However, largely, there was still the perception that females should be primarily domestic (Cookson and Persell). In the upper class, this often meant, not only being the one to take care of

64

the children, but the person who was also the social bastion of the family. In other words, upper class women were expected to organize and execute various social events. Considering that New England boarding schools were expensive, a relatively large portion of students at these schools came from upper-class families, and thus had this similar expectation. Furthermore, since scholarships were relatively new at this point in time, that was a limited option. For example, at Andover, the headmaster’s wife organized a social club for women to drink tea, and discuss various matters. This was largely for the faculty wives, or married faculty, but single female faculty were allowed as well. Why they did not drink bourbon or coffee like their male peers may be a silly question, but the question of their extreme marginalization, although a fixture of the times, is a more disturbing one (Dalton 19).

Therefore, as the minority in an educational setting (especially a typically upper-class one), the girls had to choose between two very distinct options: they had to embrace their femininity, or they had to masculinize themselves. As an example, one female faculty member at Andover described how difficult it was to be female and a teacher at the school. Out of the 149 faculty members at the school, only 26 were female (17.4%) (Dalton 17). So, when associating with the other Andover faculty, who were predominately male, the female faculty often felt that they had to consciously make this decision. They had to decide to become very feminine, or take on the characteristics of their male counterparts. Thus, the female faculty felt pressured to gravitate to one of the extremes as the minority party in the situation.

One important phenomenon relating to being a minority in an academic setting is that it is not necessarily a conscious decision to gravitate to the extremes, but rather a subconscious way of assimilating into the school. When people go to school and meet a large number of people at one time that they have to live with, they begin to take the personalities of others as static.

Furthermore, since others view someone as static, that person begins to settle into a certain personality that will be fixed for the rest of their lives. Thus, if females feel that they have to gravitate towards one extreme or the other while their personalities are solidifying, this means that they might be solidified in an overly masculine or feminine manner.

Furthermore, this situation is much more nuanced because people are not simply caricatures of a certain personality. Humans are much more complex. Whether or not they felt forced to act a certain way to fit in, students may have subconsciously felt that pressure, and assimilated in some respects, but not others.

65

It is extremely difficult to determine causation when it comes to an individual’s personality. There are so many events, pressures, and interpersonal dynamics that affect personality in a plethora of ways. Thus, this is a complicated discussion in which there are no definite conclusions. However, there does appear to be a trend towards migrating to one of the extremes in order to assimilate in the school as a minority.

A great illustration of this can be found among three early female graduates: Three of the first girls at The Gunnery were Heidi Rowe, Nicki Lazzare, and Andrea Wells. Nicki Lazzare and Andrea Wells were one-year seniors while Heidi Rowe was a junior and completed two years at The Gunnery (Red and Gray). Some of the strokes of their personalities suggest certain ways that girls would act in the school in order to be respected and accepted. This is not to say that “fitting in” formed their personalities, but rather to suggest that they each had certain personality traits that either did or did not gain acceptance, which subsequently demonstrated that certain traits were valued at the school.

Heidi Rowe was a stellar athlete. She came to The Gunnery from Shepaug, the local public high school, when The Gunnery first became coeducational. While at Shepaug, Heidi had qualified for boys’ state finals in swimming while also being given All-League Honors for field hockey as a junior. Her parents were both faculty at The Gunnery, and wanted her to attend The Gunnery in order to have a better educational opportunity. Her father had graduated from Princeton, and her mother from Wesleyan. She was also a very strong student, especially in math. On standardized tests, she consistently scored extremely high on the math section and reasonably high on the verbal section. On multiple occasions, she was described as a very attractive girl. It was said that her smile would light up anyone’s day (Spence Interview). She was a reserved person, and tended to be quiet in class, especially when she did not have the confidence to speak up. She took the highest math class at The Gunnery, and did extremely well until a section of the course that required prior knowledge on trigonometry, which she had never taken (H. Rowe Interview).

Nicki Lazzare was quite different from Heidi Rowe. She was from New York City and lived on Park Avenue, which is home to some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Her father attended Columbia and became a textile executive, while her stepmother went to Berkeley and was a stay-at-home mother. When her marriage was announced later in her life, it was in the New York Times. She was elected prefect at the school, the first female to do so. She had

66

previously attended Wykeham Rise School after attending Choate Rosemary Hall when she was younger. She was a weak-to-average student throughout most of her life, but became a slightly above average student during her time at The Gunnery. She was described by many as a socialite. One person described that she was able to move through social circles with ease. Some of those who reported this portrayed it in a negative manner. They described her as someone who was difficult at times and not the true epitome of a leader (Various Interviews).

Andrea Wells was from a small, rural town in Connecticut. She was an exceptional student academically as she was able to complete high school in three years, and then attend Cornell University. She said that she played “a game of stupidity” at The Gunnery in order to fit in at the school. She was a shy, relatively naïve student who was quite engrossed in her studies at the time (Wells Interview).

So, to simplify their personalities for the sake of discussion, Heidi Rowe was the stellar athlete and mathematician, Nicki Lazzare was the socialite from New York City, and Andrea Wells was the young, naïve, strong student. Multiple sources have confirmed that the elections for Prefectship were essentially a popularity contest among the students (Spence Interview). Out of all the Prefects (the five others were boys), Nicki Lazzare was the only one to be on Honor Roll. Thus, we have two students who seemed to generally follow the mold of the extremes of personality, gaining them respect, while one remained outside, and was not a socially accepted student.

Nicki Lazzare seemed to adopt one end of the spectrum, that of the very feminine persona. One person described her thus, “she knew how to move around social circles.” Thus, she appeared to act as a typical female minority, and gained the social acceptance of her peers, as evidenced by her election as Prefect. Heidi Rowe, embodied the other side of the spectrum in that she entered into the masculine value system, and earned the respect of her peers. She was stellar in math and sports, two disciplines that are highly valued by males typically. She became a poster-child for the school in a sense. A couple of people who I interviewed remarked she was the model student for The Gunnery (Spence and Eanes Interviews). Heidi Rowe was especially popular among the faculty, and she consistently earned their praise. She was regarded by faculty members to be a natural leader of the school. She was exactly the type of female student that was desired when coeducation began at The Gunnery. Andrea Wells, on the other hand, was engrossed in her studies and did not put much value in socializing. She was also not as

67

competitive in the sports realm as she was academically. Thus, she did not embody either end of the spectrum, and was not accepted socially as were the other two female students. However, Andrea Wells seemed to embody exactly what Mr. Kern wanted the school to become. She was a stellar student who completed work at an extremely high level of rigor (Wells Interview). Mr. Kern recruited her to the school with incentives. Further, Mr. Kern had his wife, who also worked in the school, as Andrea’s advisor so that Andrea would remain close to the family. She reported having a good relationship with both of the Kerns. They valued her intellectual ability while she valued the intellectual value that they brought to the school (Wells Interview).

This is not to state that these first female students at The Gunnery completely embodied the ways in which I have described them generally. Rather, it is to show how certain traits were valued in specific ways. Whether or not girls were consciously acting in different ways because of the imbalance, is difficult to assess. What can be said, however, is that girls with particular traits were valued. Thus, there was likely some pressure to possess the qualities that gained the respect and treatment that the girls desired.

Therefore, it seemed that girls experienced a similar dilemma and were forced to make a choice, as did other minority students. Either they manifest significantly feminine traits and demonstrate attributes that facilitate social acceptance or they adopt the traits of their masculine peers, and earn the respect among the dominant community. This is a profoundly constricting predicament. Students should not be confined inordinately in any way in terms of personality, but it seems as though girls, being the small minority, were in this position.

Another facet of the female student experience is the recognition that this process of polar assimilation, itself, contributes to and reinforces gender stereotyping. In a study done on coeducation, researchers found that where there is gender imbalance in the classroom, gender stereotyping increases because males do not encounter enough females to extinguish the stereotypes by observation of natural variation in presumed gender-based traits (Dalton 31-32).

One example of this is found in an article in the Taft newspaper. During the early years of coeducation, a female student from Taft wrote an article on gender stereotyping, and related how the school was not succeeding in coeducation because students were still being pushed into the stereotypical disciplines. She disliked how females were pressured into the arts, while the boys were pressured into playing sports (Taft Papyrus). Therefore, not only does the proportionate

68

imbalance of the genders produce the phenomenon of girls having to fit a certain mold in order to assimilate, but it also causes the ongoing gender stereotyping among the students.

Furthermore, whenever there is imbalance between the sexes, there is the possibility for sexual objectification, especially at a high-school level. High school is already a sexually charged environment in which members of the opposite sex are objectified, but the imbalance in ratio of boys to girls exacerbates this problem tremendously. Since many of the boys at the schools had been attending a single-sex school, when the girls came in, they received significant attention from the males. The way that the girls handled this attention predictably varied. Some enjoyed the attention of being female in a school with an excess of males. One alumnus described consistently having a boyfriend at The Gunnery. Others felt nervous and full of angst about being the subjects of such attention (Lipham Watson Interview).

Additionally, the entrance of female students raised significant disciplinary questions that had not been confronted in an all boys’ school. A good number of people whom I interviewed remarked how The Gunnery was new to having disciplinary action for girls, and thus initially responded with a policy characterized by leniency. It was the same at Taft and Andover. What this meant was that the girls were able to get away with more because the school lacked experience on a disciplinary level when it came to female students. The schools were naïve about what kind of trouble girls would cause, so they initially were able to get away with more. Thus, the underground social scene for girls was strong, meaning that they were able to break school rules more readily than the male students (Eanes Cobb and Dalton 110).

In terms of inter-dorm visitation with girls in boys’ dorms and vice-versa, different schools took different policies on the matter. At Andover and Taft, inter-dorm visitation was allowed as long as the visitor was cleared by the dorm parent (Cobb and Dalton 110). Visitation was not initially allowed at Taft, but was later adopted. At Taft, the door could be closed to the room and the faculty rarely checked on the students. At Andover, a member of the opposite sex coming over to visit implied that sex would occur (Cobb Interview). Thus, there was not much inter-dorm visitation in which there was socializing between larger groups of different sexes. The Gunnery took a different route, and decided to forbid inter-dorm visitation between sexes.

The issue of sex at a coeducational boarding school has always been a difficult one for schools as they often fluctuate between idealistic and pragmatic plans. The one thing that is sure about this issue is that having a gender imbalance contributes to the sexual objectification of the

69

minority sex. Thus, the gender imbalance at The Gunnery, Taft, and Andover served to cause some serious problems when it came to the social realm of the school.

70

Chapter 11 | Female Role Models Another important issue that often arose in schools during the early transition to coeducation was the lack of female role models. When young females did not see members of their own gender in leadership roles, there was a “chilling” effect on their aspirations and pessimism about achieving career success (Dalton 142). In addition to high-level administrative role models, the roles of teacher or coach of the co-curricular that the girls participated in were influential and the advisor system was an important provider of role models. To break the molds of conventional socialization, it is important to have role models who themselves break these conventions.

At the administrative level of the school, it was a very business-like atmosphere. Based on the norms and conventions of the workplace of the 1970s, it seemed only normal that the school would have primarily male administrators. The issue that developed from this apparent conventionality was not only that a female viewpoint was not part of the decision-making process, but also a “chilly” environment confronted females in the male-dominated culture of the day. A lack of role models at the top level of the school administration can seriously undermine the confidence of a female student and have devastating effects on her aspirations. Girls could not picture themselves in the higher levels of leadership, and thus felt as though they could not achieve this success. This situation can seriously undermine confidence in the classroom and elsewhere, leading to a tangible difference in the educational experience for girls as compared to boys (Dalton 142). Many of the schools that transitioned to coeducation had an issue with an overly masculine Board of Trustees and administrative regime of the school.

Andover, for example, cited in their study an under-representation in female administrators and members of the Board. This went so far as to make some of the female board members feel “pressed” by the masculine environment of the Board (Dalton 99). Thus, the female students at Andover were not able to find many role models in leadership roles that they could admire and emulate. The boys, on the other hand, had several leadership role models that they could look up to, thus giving them the perception that they, themselves, could be leaders, and strive for that in their careers.

At Taft, when the school was hiring a new headmaster during the first year of coeducation, they did not consider a single female candidate for the position. In all discussions of

71

the future headmaster, there were only male pronouns used. They also stated that they would interview the wife of every candidate before they got the job (Taft Papyrus). Thus, Taft seemed to be in a similar situation in which the leadership and administration of the school was perceived to be an exclusively masculine domain. The Gunnery faced similar issues in its leadership. For example, practically all the women at the administrative level of the school filled the role of secretary, while all consequential leadership positions were held by males (Red and Gray). During the year 1977 (the first year of coeducation), the Board of Trustees had only 4 female members out of 23 members (Messina). By the year 1978, they had already added two more, yet the Board remained overwhelmingly male (Board Tenure Report). Similar to the discussion of Andover noted above, this led to a lack of confidence in women’s assumption of leadership positions. This lack of observable female success within the academic power structure, coupled with an increased male dominance in leadership, served to perpetuate the gender norms as well as to provide an unfavorable environment for the girls matriculating at the school.

Another aspect of leadership at the school was the coach or leadership of co-curriculars.

As mentioned before, it was common among the schools to have male coaches for the varsity level girls’ sports. At Taft, the male head coach for girls’ varsity basketball simply stumbled into the role after giving the then female coaches some advice during a practice (Cobb Interview). At Andover, the comprehensive study of coeducation showed that the female coaches were less likely to be coaching competitive sports than the males (Dalton 82). At The Gunnery, it was cited that often men with college athletic experience coached the female sports (Birch). This move was good for girls’ sports in that it provided more experienced and talented coaching for the girls. The drawback, however, was that this did not create a good system of role models to break the cycle of existing gender stereotypes. The reason that sports coaches are in such a unique position to be mentors and role models is the arena in which sports play out. What I mean by this is that sports create a landscape in which the students can become significantly connected with the coaches. By going through times of trial and sacrifice for the sake of sport, students often draw closer to their coaches than they would to a teacher, for example. Thus, it is a great opportunity for young people to have a role model that they can connect with in a consequential and meaningful way in terms of their character development. However, when the majority of coaches for girls’ sports are male, it sends the message that in order to be a high-level coach in

72

sports, you will likely have to be male. This, once again, serves to create an environment in which girls are subtly devalued and pushed to the fringe of the school. Also, in regards specifically to sports, it furthers the notion that sports are predominantly a male discipline and females have simply been allowed to nominally participate, but will never truly be part of the school’s athletic scene. Furthermore, with a lack of confidence stemming in part from a lack of role models, females are less likely to realize success in sports and move into a higher level of competition. This lack of role models in the sports realm also can create tangible differences in the lives of the female students, versus male students, at a coeducational boarding school. In other words, this system of coaching serves to perpetuate the norms of gender that the school needs to fight against in order to achieve gender equality.

This very same phenomenon of a paucity of female role models extends to the academic faculty members as well. At Andover, Taft, and The Gunnery, there existed a large imbalance of faculty members, as the majority of longer serving faculty members were male. So, even with efforts to recruit more female faculty members, it remained seriously imbalanced. When Andover merged with Abbot and became coeducational, Andover was firmly in control of the transition. Thus, when decisions about faculty were being made at the coeducational school in the early years, all Andover faculty were asked to stay with the school while former Abbot teachers were selectively retained (Dalton 15). The result was a huge gender imbalance in the faculty as only 26 out of the 149 faculty members were female. Taft and The Gunnery faced similar issues, as they did not even have a pool of female teachers to add to the faculty. Thus, in terms of numbers, girls were much more likely to have a male teacher in class than a female.

Therefore, once again, female role models were few and far between. The female students at The Gunnery did not have the same experience as the males, as the boys had many more gender role models as authority figures in their lives. Thus, The Gunnery girls (as well as the girls at the other two schools) did not perceive members of their own sex as leaders as readily as did the boys, which had the demoralizing effect among the girls with regards to career aspirations.

Additionally, the faculty gender distribution tended to extend the myth of gender aptitude in certain disciplines, with male faculty teaching math and science courses disproportionately. For example, at both Taft and The Gunnery, the leader of the arts program was female, while the head of the math department was male (Red and Gray and Taft Papyrus). Thus, not only was there a lack of female representation, but it often perpetuated gender stereotyping among the

73

students. Thus, the issue of faculty demographic and role model influence seriously disadvantaged female students, particularly in cases where women contemplated a career path in disciplines not stereotypically female.

Not surprisingly, the issue of inadequate role modeling penetrated to the level of student leadership as well. Both Taft and Andover suffered from similar issues as The Gunnery. At Andover, a report authored by two students regarding the merger between Abbot and Andover was initiated by the observation that student leadership positions were held significantly more often by boys than girls (Neklason &Murree). It was reported that males voted almost exclusively for males, while females voted for both male and female candidates. At Taft, the girls felt that the females in the leadership positions were only token efforts to foster the appearance of girls in leadership (Taft Papyrus). The lack of female leadership at Taft created such a problem that the school created a Council for Girls, so that females could hold leadership positions. It was quite similar at The Gunnery. A Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery showed that both Prefect and Community Council positions were held more often by boys than girls (Birch). Thus, girls were not given equal opportunity to hold leadership positions at The Gunnery. Not only did that mean that girls wanting to be leaders might not be selected even with equal qualifications, but it also meant that girls might be discouraged from even trying to become leaders. There was a lack of female leadership role models for the younger girls in the school, which reduced confidence in their ability to successfully achieve leadership status. This lack of female student leadership in combination with the lack of adult female role models in the school could undermine the confidence of girls to become leaders in the community.

When reading this section, one might argue the lack of role models was simply a byproduct of a collection of unintentional and inevitable demographic realities, and should not be critically viewed as a serious flaw. That was true to an extent, but that raised the question of exactly how proactive the school should be in creating a balance between genders. Should the school take an active stance against gender stereotypes, or simply follow already-established hiring procedures? Should the school hire a female math department head instead of a male in order to push back against prevailing gender stereotypes? Or, should the school simply choose a male math department head as the majority of candidates were likely be male? More generally, the school had to decide exactly how active to be in achieving a gender balance.

74

Chapter 12 | Culture of School What is the culmination of all of this? Generally, it produces a culture in which girls are pushed to the fringe of the community. Virtually all aspects of the existing coeducational structure coalesce and essentially serve to create a school in which the boys are favored over the girls. Even though this is clearly the case when seen in retrospect, since it was so pervasive, subtle, and nuanced, not everyone realized what was occurring at the time. Thus, The Gunnery created and perpetuated gender inequity in the early years without anyone (even the girls) being fully conscious of its corrosive potential. So, in abstract terms, the question remains: why did the school end up with this imbalanced environment in terms of gender? There are a couple of main reasons, some of which are more obvious than others.

The first, and, obviously, the most apparent, issue with coeducation is the ratio between the boys and girls in the school. Clearly, since The Gunnery had just become coeducational, this was a likely inevitable aspect of its early experience with coeducation. But, that does not mean that this ratio will create a more balanced environment in terms of gender. In a number of different areas, the unequal ratio of boys to girls proved detrimental to The Gunnery. The two biggest examples of this are in the social aspect and the academic aspect of the school. The imbalance of the genders also contributes to the entire culture of the school being predominantly masculine, as the majority will inevitably overshadow the minority of the school. Therefore, most tangibly, the issue with coeducation was the unequal numeric balance between boys and girls.

The next issue was the imposition of girls onto the male model of education. This approach to coeducation was the biggest difference between The Gunnery experience and that of Taft and Andover. This approach can most accurately be depicted by the phrase “gender-blind.�

This phrase implies that there were noble intentions in terms of gender equity. The Gunnery did not decide that they would have girls in a male model of education in order to make it a difficult place for girls to come to school. Rather, The Gunnery felt that the new movement meant that boys and girls could do the same things, so there was no need to have other aspects of the school in order to accommodate the girls. It was an optimistic and egalitarian position that ignored several consequential realities. This approach was a very idealistic one that did not give much thought to the way that girls had been socialized. In other words, it operates under the

75

assumption that the school exists in isolation as regards either the pressure or effect of socialization. In reality, since the school does operate outside of this theoretical vacuum, it must grapple with the reality that girls have been and continue to be socialized in a certain way. Thus, when the school attempts to create equality by simply allowing girls into the masculine realm of education to interact and compete on a fictitious level field, they ignore the fact that girls had already been socialized to be a certain way and needed more purposeful approach in order to be truly and effectively integrated.

At the worst, this decision could appear as a form of laziness on the part of the school, but this seems rather unlikely. The other factor that could have played a role in the decision to essentially have a “gender-blind” model was the financial reality that existed. The Gunnery, like many other New England boarding schools at the time, did not have the funds to launch numerous projects for coeducation. Thus, there was likely the intention to do more, but the inability financially to do so. One former administrator at the school described it as being a practical matter in the first couple of years. He described that they needed to reach a “critical mass” of female enrollment in the first couple years of coeducation. He said that they accepted that they would not achieve perfect coeducation in the first couple of years. Rather, the focus was on achieving critical mass, and moving forward from there as the imperatives presented themselves (Spence Interview). Any way that it came about (or as a culmination of a number of different possibilities), it was an inherently idealistic and well-meaning approach.

Certain traits and disciplines statistically align with the different genders to varying degrees. In order to achieve a balance between the genders, the school needs to nurture and value both sides of the spectrum in terms of both disciplines and traits. It does not mean that the school wants to force everything to the middle of the spectrum, but rather that both sides are present and valued in a harmonious balance that enriches the environment. Balance is lost when one side is underrepresented. So, when The Gunnery was a single-sex school, it was appropriate that they have disciplines and value systems on the masculine side of the spectrum. To do otherwise would have been odd, culturally out of touch, and counter to the expectations of parents and students. When the school then became coeducational, it continued in this tradition of masculinity, in effect skewing the student experience towards the way that males had been socialized. However, it is important to realize that this was not overt sexism in that the girls were discriminated against because they were female. Rather, the girls were pushed to the fringe

76

because of a certain set of personality and character traits. It means that boys who had interests and traits that were considered typically feminine were also pushed to the fringe of The Gunnery.

It is not an obvious and simple matter of overt sexism. Rather, it is a nuanced situation involving gender identity that creates this bias, which disguises it from common view.

The other way of thinking of this issue is on the basis of the mind-body split. When one is born and developing, they likely contain the characteristics of both, at least in limited form.

So, when boys and girls are socialized to embody one side of the equation over the other, it is like giving up half of the entire persona. Therefore, when sports teach young males to take feelings and characteristics of the body side and turn them into characteristics of the mind side, the other side of the split is put into remission. When the school largely operates in a culture that values things such as sports, competition, and toughness, the student is forced to give up the other side of the spectrum. So, in the process, there is the creation of an implicit rhetoric that argues that a certain side of the persona is the better of the two. At the same time, the school continues to foster and approve of women having the stereotypical qualities of socialized females.

Therefore, by having a “gender-blind� policy at the school, the school abandons one half of the spectrum of gender traits. The school gives up on one side of the mind-body split. In the process, they create an environment that undermines the learning potential of the females in the classroom. This decision also alienates girls from positions of power and respect within the academic institution. Further, it teaches females that the traits that they have been socialized to develop are not the best qualities, yet does not fully encourage the adoption of others.

This essentially creates a stronghold of power in the masculine range of the spectrum of personality traits. Instead of there being overt sexism in the form of students not being allowed certain rights because of their gender, there is now a system in which women are simply at a disadvantage when it comes to high achievement in that kind of environment. In other words, males are essentially saying that they can be equal to them, but only if they adopt certain traits in order to be successful in disciplines and areas that are considered valuable by the group that has already been in power. This is not a conscious decision on the part of males to continue to bar females from achieving at a higher level. In my studies, I did not find there to be much apparent malice when it came to girls being admitted to the school. The majority of the issues came from an arguably flawed perspective, lack of a purposeful and affirmative mission, and the inherent

77

difficulties of operating in a very non-progressive time period. Either way, however, the issues were present, and still continue to cause issues for the school.

Even if the school were not concerned with strict gender equity, this same issue would be present at an all-boys school, but would simply be more hidden. By pressuring students into a masculine value system and way of education, schools abandon the other side of personality, or the mind-body split. Many of the traits that are part of the other side of the spectrum are quite desirable ones that have simply been pushed to the fringe for seemingly arbitrary reasons. For example, being someone who is collaborative and works well with others seems to be a societally valuable trait. Yet, by having a value system rooted in masculine traits and perspectives, competition is valued over collaboration. Thus, by abandoning one side of the personality, the student gives up many valuable traits. I am not arguing that we should enter into a situation that values the feminine traits over the others, as that would be similarly destructive.

Furthermore, by ridding the self of one side of the personality, the student loses balance in his or her life. A student should be able to practice all aspects of a healthy life. This includes being both competitive and collaborative, tough and emotional. Thus, the culture of the school is not only negative for the girls as they are subjected to the fringe, but the lack of a balanced environment is destructive for every student involved. Therefore, if an all-boys school exhibited the same traits, I would argue that there is an issue with that as well. All in all, the school creates an environment that is chilling to women with the adoption of a “gender-blind� approach.

This discussion relates to the difference between the second and third waves of feminism.

The second wave wanted the opportunities to enter into the masculine landscape of jobs or education, and be given the same respect as men in these areas. The third wave feminists view this as females having to assimilate and enter into the masculine space in order to be respected.

The post-structuralist nature of the third wave means that it is fragmented, and tries to avoid firm and constraining definitions. However, by doing this, they hope to embrace a multiplicity of definitions of feminism and female identity. In other words, the third wave articulates a dissatisfaction with the outcome that even though women have largely been allowed into the masculine spaces, they have to adopt a masculine value system in order to be respected. The third wave of feminism argues that the entire spectrum of gender and personality traits should be respected. This means that they can embrace their femininity or whatever traits that they want to

78

have, and still be valued in our society. In other words, they hope for a dilution of the stronghold of power around the masculine traits and disciplines.

This decision to be “gender-blind� is quite familiar in relation to how other minorities have been treated over the course of history. Once a minority group has started to overcome the overt discrimination, they enter a stage in which there seems to be equality of the groups. For example, African Americans gain voting rights and then are perceived to be equal in representation. Or, they are now allowed to work in a workplace free of overt discrimination.

Yet, the group that is the majority has already created a system of value in the workplace that favors one ethnic group, on average, over the other. So, there is the perception that there is equity, yet the group that is the majority does better because of the value system that is still in place. Thus, there is a perception of equity, and yet full realization of equity remains far removed.

Furthermore, the arguably paradoxical aspect of the entire situation is that the approach is intended to allow girls into the masculine, more dominant realm of education, yet the school does not give girls the full appropriations to do so. The Gunnery unintentionally created a situation in which they were allowing females into the masculine realm of education, but were not giving them the tools to do so properly. The most obvious example of this is in the sports aspect of the school. The Gunnery wanted girls to enter into the masculine educational model by having the vast majority of them playing sports in the afternoon. However, they did not give them the means to do so producing, in effect, a symbolic or token gesture. They did not give them the facilities, support, or respect in order to thrive and take their rightful place as co-equals.

Then, the argument was made that girls simply were not as good at sports as the boys. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that they do not give the girls the respect, resources, and support to do well, and then latch onto the results when they do not perform well as evidence that they don't deserve those resources. This is also true for other aspects of the school as well. Generally, The Gunnery continued to act in step with the rest of society. The school did not actively go against the gender stereotyping in terms of personalities and disciplines. Thus, while wanting girls to adopt the masculine style of the existing educational structure, females were still being pushed into what was considered the typically feminine persona, but at the same time, not being provided the equal playing field to do so.

79

This presents a paradoxical view of coeducation that suggests a lack of full commitment to equality. The Gunnery was not fully rooted and invested in the idea of equality between the genders. Rather, the school created a paradoxical environment in which girls were expected to be like males, but at the same time, had aspects of the school that worked directly counter to them when they did so. Therefore, when bringing girls into the school, they were unwilling or lacked the vision to modify the masculine culture of the school, yet viewed the females who came to The Gunnery as products of typical socialization; in effect expecting an admittedly square peg to fit into a round hole.

What The Gunnery inadvertently had created is a flawed system of coeducation. The school chose an idealistic “gender-blind” approach that effectively ostracized the typical female student. Coeducation was rooted in females entering into the male style of education in the “gender-blind” approach. But, they did not allow girls, culturally and tangibly, into this style of education. Therefore, The Gunnery created a form of pseudo-equality in which there was the nominal perception of equality, yet many harmful differences remained between the experience of the genders.

80

Chapter 13 | Perspective In the discussion of the issues of coeducation, one cannot ignore the degree to which prep school coeducation thematically interacted with the women's rights movement playing out on the national level. This is not a surprising phenomenon in that incremental societal change happens in a discontinuous fashion with waves of reverberating effect washing through culturally conservative bastions of male dominance (Dalton 1). What I mean by this is that during the period of coordination and coeducation, America was moving into a new age of women’s rights.

The time period between that time and early co-educational efforts affected how the people of the time viewed it. As mentioned in the introduction, much of the 1970s movement within the prep school world for equality between men and women was brought about by this movement that I have referred to as the second wave of feminism. Women pushed for equality in the workplace and classroom. But, the way that this movement defined equality between the genders is somewhat different than how I have defined equity in this paper. What equality meant in this second wave was that women would be allowed the same opportunities and pay that men were.

So, the benchmark for assessing equality meant that overt sexism was eliminated from the workplace or the school. People seemed to assume that equality was present if women were not overtly barred as a matter of stated policy from either realm on the basis of sex. People assumed equality was present if women were given the same payment as men. Thus, what developed was a value system that is different from how I have judged equity at The Gunnery and other schools.

During the period of coeducation (especially at The Gunnery) people who were involved felt that by simply distancing themselves from the overt sexism of the past, they were achieving equality.

The Gunnery was largely perceived as successful in achieving this equality in simply opening its doors to girls. They allowed girls the same opportunity as the males to have a good education at a New England boarding school. As one administrator from the time stated, the school did not take an extremely scientific approach to instituting coeducation at The Gunnery.

They simply thought that allowing girls into the school was doing the right thing in terms of achieving equality as per the time period at which coeducation occurred. There was not a meticulously well thought out plan of how to help the girls thrive in the school. There was not a new measuring stick of invisible inequity that showed the flaws in the system of coeducation, partly because the national women's right movement had not progressed in that discussion to a

81

significant degree. Thus, The Gunnery, like the other schools, was successful in its plans for coeducation when assessed in light of the time period that this all occurred. While judging through the lens of future paradigms relating to gender equity is inherently unfair and misleading, it nevertheless allows us to understand what went right and what went wrong in the process.

Lacking an evidence-based science of coeducation (because it simply did not exist), many issues could only be grappled with as they emerged. So, when Andover opened its doors to girls and certain disciplines in the school refused to allow women in on the basis of sex, there was a perceived issue. When “boys felt intellectually superior at first,” there was an issue at the school Dalton 17-18). Similarly, when boys at Taft told girls that they are not welcome at the school and preceded to actively make them feel unwanted, there was a perceived issue with coeducation (Taft Papyrus). However, once these issues were righted and there was no longer overt sexism at the school, they often felt that equality had been achieved. Similarly, since most reports from The Gunnery recount little-to-no overt sexism at all during the early years of coeducation, there was the perception that the job had been done. The girls were allowed in the school and were allowed to participate in all of the activities that the boys did, so they were considered to be equal.

This difference in perception of equality/equity directly relates to how some people perceived there to be sexism at the school while others did not. For example, Taft largely felt that there was not sexism at the school. One faculty member recounted that “the teachers were not sexist at all, so we did not face sexism as a problem in the classroom” (Cobb Interview) Yet, at the same time or even later in the timeline of coeducation, a girl from the school wrote an article on how there was rampant sexism in the school (Taft Papyrus). She described how people were subtly forced into the different disciplines based on a number of forces at the school. It is instructive to see the stark and palpable difference in the perception of the student and the maledominated academic structure as regards sexism in the school. Clearly this student, and presumably many or her peers, had a different perception of what gender equity was than the faculty member. So, much of the discrepancy between whether or not there was equity at the schools was simply due to different definitions of equality/equity. If some girls at the school had a progressive definition of equity, they would perceive issues with the school even if the school were up to the current societal definition of equity. Times of societal change inevitably produce

82

discontinuous waves of discontent and perceived progress that characterize a messy and incremental march to fulfillment. That is what seemed to have happened at the schools that I researched. Largely, people (more likely administrators and male students) were content with the equality in the school because the school had obtained the common definition of equality as per the artificial distance I defined above from the overt sexism of the past. But, there were a growing number (more likely female students and faculty) who had progressive ideas about the true meaning of equity and thus perceived there to be lingering and substantial issues at the school.

Some might argue that the third wave definitions of equity are fickle and amorphous while the second wave perceptions that discourage overt sexism remain valid and practical.

However, there are clear flaws in that line of reasoning. The assumption in that paradigm is that women may take the environment they enter as both the starting and the endpoint, with assimilation to the masculine dominant culture as requisite to respect and success in the professional realm. This is due to the fact that in this view, equality means that females are allowed to enter into the masculine area of everything. This view operates under the assumption that the only way to find success is through the masculine persona, disciplines, and overall way of doing things. In other words, leave your femininity (and whatever that includes) at the door. I would argue, however, that this is not equity. Rather, equity would be when the feminine side of the spectrum of traits is respected just as much as the masculine side of the spectrum. So, instead of having to enter into masculine territory in order to gain respect, women (and men, for that matter) should be allowed to be who they are (even if that is on what is considered the feminine end of the spectrum) and be respected for their choice and accomplishment in that venue.

So, it is certainly understandable that with a certain view of equality, coeducation was successful at The Gunnery and other schools. Looking through the lens of the time there was a brief moment of self-satisfaction when assessing the effort. However, as we have progressed from the time period in which that definition of equality was accepted, new definitions, such as the one presented in this work, have developed. So, if The Gunnery continues to operate within the previous definition of equality, there will be more and more perceived issues of inequity between the genders and we will fail to live up to the promise for the educational development of our female student body. Therefore, moving forward, The Gunnery has to decide exactly what its definition of gender equality is. This definition does not have to be the one of the time. It can be

83

one rooted in the past, grounded in the present, or it can be the paradigm of the future.

Experience has shown that operating from assumptions of the past or the present without critical introspection gets many of the details wrong and sets back the cause of educational equity. Our vision does not have to be the one that I have presented in this project. But, if the school wants to achieve gender equity, it first has to affirmatively and purposefully chart a course forward and must understand the ramifications of its own definition of equality.

84

Chapter 14 | How it Progressed The trek to achieve gender equality among prep schools does not stop in the late 1970s.

Since then, schools have been progressing in various ways and at different paces. Much of the achieved gender equality is not associated with the first couple years of coeducation, but rather with the progress made in the subsequent several years. While Taft and Andover pushed ahead at incredible speed, The Gunnery found itself attempting to rebuild the school after a turbulent time.

As I have established before, Taft adopted a different strategy to achieving gender equity.

In order to attain this equity, the school stayed away from a “gender-blind” approach in which girls were essentially asked to do all of the same things that the boys had done before coeducation. Taft’s Headmaster, Mr. Esty, was extremely involved in the transition to coeducation, and made it a priority to revamp the arts programs at the school (Cobb Interview).

He also allowed girls to take gym class during the day, and participate in extra-curriculars that have come to be known as feminine, such as modern dance, bike riding, horseback riding, and figure skating. Thus, the school was focused on building the arts program from the start.

The Gunnery and Andover differed from this model as they had adopted what Andover referred to as a “gender-blind” approach. Girls participated in the same activities that the guys had done when it was an all-boys’ school. They took academic classes, and typically played sports. There was not a significant arts program at the two schools, as there was not a consistent focus on activities that were considered typically feminine.

However, within the next several years, Andover began to realize the flawed nature of this approach, and began to switch gears. In order to expand the activities on the feminine side of the spectrum, they added dynamic theater, music, and dance. The girls were given the option to take arts or music for the term instead of playing a sport (Dalton 20). Although they were not stellar programs at the start, there was a focus on improving these aspects of the school. This transition helped to bring Andover into a more modern notion of gender-equity.

In addition to switching strategies, there were large-scale movements at Andover to improve the female athletic program. In the late 1970s, Andover hired a new athletic director with the intention of drastically improving the female athletic program. Before the new athletic director took over, the girls’ athletic facilities were separate and far inferior to the boys athletic

85

facilities. So, when the new athletic director took over, he tried to change the program from “separate but equal” on the lines of gender, to having “shared unity.” This meant integrating the females into the boys’ athletic building, and thus bringing both programs up to the same level of facilities. Andover also spent more money on female athletics. The program took a swift and steep upturn (Dalton 20).

Similarly, Taft focused on establishing a good girls’ sports program. Previously, the athletic program had not been on par with the boys’ athletic programs. It was not one of the focal points of the plan to institute coeducation. This was partly due to the fact that the headmaster, Mr. Esty, was not extremely involved in the athletic aspect of the school. However, when a new headmaster took over for the second year of coeducation, he focused on improving the athletic program at the school, especially that for the females. In a matter of four or five years, girls’ soccer, lacrosse, and ice hockey were all added to the school. In addition, the facilities for the sports improved drastically. One of the faculty members at the time described the change as quick and natural, while also adding that the reason that it was possible was because of very purposeful, top-down leadership that focused on improving gender equity at the school (Cobb Interview).

The Gunnery, however, did not have the same sort of progression. After the first two years of coeducation, the headmaster, Mr. Kern, was fired from the school. He had already managed to terminate over 100 years of faculty experience, however (Eanes Interview). The Gunnery was in a big hole: it had lost its most experienced faculty, had to fire a headmaster after only two years, and did not have the full support of the community due to some of Mr. Kern’s alienating tactics. Mr. Eanes, who was formerly the Assistant Head of School and the Director of Advancement, took over the school. He was charged with the task of rebuilding the school to its former position within the prep school community. As such, gender equity was certainly not one of the focal points during this time. And thus, The Gunnery did not progress much on this front.

When Robert Birch completed A Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery, he found some disconcerting details regard the ratio of boys to girls. The ratio had not changed much since the start of coeducation. In 1988 when the study was written, the ratio was two boys to every one girl (Birch). As I have discussed before, there are a number of detrimental effects of having females as the minority at the school.

86

In addition to the issue of the ratio, it seemed that there was not much effort made to switch away from the “gender-blind” approach. The Gunnery did not add any of the programs geared towards females, as the other schools had, such as horseback riding and figure skating, despite planning to add them (Coed Planning). The stereotypical feminine programs that were already in place were not strengthened. In addition, the female sports program was not actively developed during this time period. More money was spent on male athletics than female athletics. When studying the statistics of the admissions department, the researcher found that 10% of girls who toured the school noted that the female athletic facilities were not adequate.

Eight girls who toured the school remarked that there was inequity between the boys’ and girls’ athletic programs. Girls’ sports were cited as one of the two worst programs at the school.

Furthermore, when studying the athletic programs at the school, there were some very shocking statistics. For example, 83% of females and 75% of male faculty members perceived a difference in how girls’ and boys’ sports were handled in the admissions office. Next, 76% of male faculty and 83% of female faculty felt that there was inequality in the amount of support that the programs received. Lastly, 65% of male faculty and 100% of female faculty perceived a difference in representation in the school paper (Birch). Thus, the girls athletic program was not developed at the same tempo as Andover and Taft.

In addition, some gender issues came to the forefront in terms of the academic aspects of The Gunnery. The faculty member noticed that the preferences and perceptions of the sexes were divided along the lines of gender stereotyping. For example, girls were perceived to perform the best in the fine arts, and liked them the most. The researcher also found a smaller percentage of girls taking high-level math courses than boys. The canon system in all classes was found to perpetuate gender norms. Furthermore, the researcher found that the students actually achieved equally in the different subjects, but the perception was often that one gender was better at a certain subject than the other (Birch). Thus, the academic program as well had not progressed much in gender equality.

Lastly, there were still some issues relating to gender equality in the extracurricular aspects of the school. Males still held the majority of student leadership positions. Males primarily held both the Community Council and prefect positions. Other extra-curriculars were stratified along the lines of gender. For example, the Student Activities Committee was considered to be a female discipline, and the positions were primarily held by females (Birch).

87

Thus, The Gunnery did not make as much progress as other schools during the years directly following the transition to coeducation.

This lack of progression in gender equality at The Gunnery is likely due to a difference in activity level of the school administration, compared with Taft and Andover. Mr. Eanes was charged with rebuilding the school, and re-establishing relations with the community. Therefore, his focus was not on the gender equality issue at the school. In the eyes of the administration and their view of equality, they had achieved a good system at The Gunnery. However, without progression within the newer definitions of gender equity, the school slowly started to fall behind in terms of gender equity. This demonstrated how necessary it was for the leadership at The Gunnery to be extremely active and focused on establishing gender equity.

88

Chapter 15 | Coeducation and Psychosexual Development One of the primary aspects of coeducation where frank discussion has largely been avoided among boarding schools is the topic of sex and psychosexual development at the boarding school. As discussed before, one of the reasons that coeducation was decided upon at many schools was that it offered a more healthy system of psychosexual development for the students. However, as we have progressed from that time period, the issue of psychosexual development has not been given ample consideration.

When deciding on the issues of sex, New England boarding schools often find themselves making decisions on the basis of legality and conventional values in New England. For example, at The Gunnery, every dorm is a single-sex dorm. Furthermore, there is no system of inter-dorm visitation between the sexes. Members of the opposite sex are strictly prohibited from each other’s dorms. What is the reason for this decision? Legality. The school simply cannot afford to have pregnancy within the school and cannot allow minors to engage in sexual activity. But, the aspect of this that is not expressly considered is the issue of psychosexual development. By this, I do not necessarily mean the strict Freudian definition with five stages of development. Rather, I mean the way that a given person develops mentally in relation to sexual relations.

By having the school so segregated on the basis of sex, the school creates an interesting system of relations between the sexes. There is less interaction between members of the opposite sex than between members of the same sex. Thus, what results is a necessarily flawed perception of the opposite sex. Since high school students are typically in a time of puberty with the hormonal development and maturation that entails, the tendency is to think of the opposite sex as simply a sex object. When there is limited interaction between members of the opposite sex, it perpetuates the idea of the opposite sex simply being a sexual object. Failure to engage more regularly and meaningfully in an intellectual and holistic fashion is potentially damaging to one's psychosexual development. Furthermore, since boys and girls are segregated in the dorms, boys are not able to see the human aspect of girls that can be seen in their living practices and vice versa. By having strict segregation among the genders, it perpetuates stereotypical thinking during high school years.

Since the system of divided living is a constant in boarding schools, it is tough to study the effect of inter-dorm visitation rules on psychosexual development. One might think that

89

allowing inter-dorm visitation between the sexes would promote the viewing of the other sex as a human who is not simply a sex object. It gives people the opportunity to spend time in a personal fashion. Thereby, they can become better acquainted with friends of the opposite gender.

Theoretically, this would allow boys and girls to move past the view of the other as a sexual object. However, at other schools that allow inter-dorm visitation, people feel that this is not actually what happens. For example, at Taft, there was a policy in which members of the opposite sex are allowed to come into the dorm room of a student. The rules were that the door must be open and that the visiting student must sign in with the dorm parent before coming. In practice, the dorm parents rarely ever check on the students out of fear of walking in on something (Cobb Interview). Thus, inter-dorm visitation has come to imply sexual relations between the students (Taft Papyrus). Therefore, students who are genuinely interested in simply spending time with the member of the opposite sex are discouraged from going to another dorm out of fear that it will be perceived a certain way. A similar situation occurred at Andover, which also had a policy that allowed inter-dorm visitation. The rules for the visits were similar to those at Taft. So, when the study on coeducation was done, some of the answers to a free-response question indicate that the policy is flawed. One student argued that the practical application of the inter-dorm visitation policy was such that it implied sex between the students (Dalton 110).

Thus, the student felt that interaction between groups of people of the opposite sex did not occur as often as they should. Subsequently, the students felt that the inter-dorm visitation policy perpetuated the view of the opposite sex as strictly a sex object.

The other aspect of this is a rather new one to our society today (new in terms of awareness and discussion, rather than existence). Now, at New England boarding schools, there is recognition and explicit acceptance of homosexual and transgender students. This raises the issue of how exactly to place people in the dorms. Is the school attempting to prevent sex between the students? Then, homosexual and transgendered students would be placed in the dorm of the opposite sex. Or, is the school simply trying to prevent pregnancy? In that case, homosexuals should be in the dorm of their sex and thus would be practically allowed to have sex in the dorm. Or, is the school simply caught in the traditional way of housing and segregating children? The new issues that arise from these situations in boarding schools shakes the fundamentals of convention when it comes to segregation of the sexes.

90

The policies that govern these issues have a definite impact on the issue of gender equality and the intention to have the best co-educational policy possible. There are no definite answers to the questions of housing as each system presents its own issues. This seems to be a long-term issue as we look to the future and the installation of more potentially progressive policies. It is something that the school should be aware of in order to make the best decisions possible down the line. Waiting for events to force change carries a time-proven risk of getting it wrong and compromising the psychosexual development of a student cohort with long-term consequences. In my opinion, the issue of healthy psychosexual development needs to be taken more into account in order to have the healthiest system of coeducation possible, especially when confronting the inevitable challenges inherent in the new conceptions of sexuality and gender identity, manifest in the present age.

91

Chapter 16 | Broader Implications When looking at the issue of achieving a better system of gender equity at the school, one might think that the repercussions of not doing so do not matter very much in society’s terms.

However, that discounts the unique position that boarding schools are in to make changes on a broader scale. Boarding schools are very involved with the formation of the character of youth.

When students move away from home to live at a boarding school, they begin a process of gaining confidence in their individual character and thoughts. When meeting with and living with other adolescents from different areas of the world, people begin to gain confidence in their character, as they must necessarily establish identity at the school. Furthermore, as people go on to college, there is further validation of identity as people take the characters and personas of others as more fixed than fluid when meeting large amounts of new people from all over the world. Thus, boarding schools are in a unique position to play a major role in the establishment of healthy character of these students.

Therefore, when the school perpetuates a patriarchal culture, this can become woven into the fabric that is character. For example, a boy might have found success in his competitiveness in the classroom and on the field. Then, as he moves through school and onto college, he solidifies his character around what has brought him success: competition. However, if the school had a different culture that had rewarded other aspects of his character such as collaboration, then that would have been incorporated as part of his character. So, when The Gunnery has a masculine value system in which the disciplines and traits that are viewed as most important are masculine ones, it influences the people who have these to solidify their character around the traits. People, who have traits on the opposite or the more feminine side of the spectrum, find themselves subjected to the fringe of the community. This means that the solidification of values and traits could go a number of different ways. Either, they could attempt to re-solidify their personality traits with the masculine, more dominant traits or they could accept that they will always be subjected to the fringe and assume that as part of their identity.

For the average person who possesses a healthy balance of both sides of the mind-body split or both sides of the masculine-feminine spectrum, the school having a culture and value system rooted in one side or the other will likely cause the feminine or body side of the spectrum to be pushed to the fringe when the personality begins to solidify in these formative years.

92

Thus, the school perpetuates the cycle of a male-dominated society. The school helps to form the identity of students around the idea that certain personas and disciplines are better than others. At this point, one might argue that the reason that certain traits are perceived to be better than others are because they simply are better than other traits. However, what I would argue is that the best environment is to have a balance of both. I am not arguing for the destruction of what have come to be defined as “masculine� personality traits. There would be just as big of an issue in the school if there were an overwhelmingly feminine culture to the school. What I am arguing for is the balance between the different traits in the personality of a person. A person should be competitive at times and work hard to get ahead in the world. But, at the same time, a person should not take competition too far. A person should not be so rooted in competition that they fail to collaborate, as this is ultimately both disagreeable and self-defeating. In the working world, collaboration is a skill that people must have in order to be successful. Thus, the school does not need to get rid of masculine attitudes around campus. Rather, this culture of masculinity should be balanced with femininity in order to have the most balanced people possible. There is also not an issue with being more geared towards one side of the spectrum over the other. Rather, an issue develops when the person fails to recognize the value in the other side of the spectrum and abandons it completely.

This is especially important as the world progresses more and more. With movements against the patriarchal system of power, the world is moving towards a more balanced system. If the school continues to perpetuate these old norms in the personalities and thoughts of the graduates, then the alumni will not be as successful as they could be. In other words, the world is now requiring a more balanced personality. The working person needs to be both competitive and collaborative in order to be successful. The working person needs to be both logical and in touch with emotional creativity in order to be successful. The working person needs to be both good at math and a creative thinker in order to be successful. That is the reality of the modern world. And, since the movement is increasingly away from the patriarchal system in which people only exhibit one side of the traits over the other, this need for a new balanced reality is taking over more and more as time goes on.

Thus, not only does the school have the responsibility to end the perpetuation of a system that is wrong for our world, but it also needs to move away from it in order to remain successful.

The Gunnery is behind the times in terms of its system of coeducation. Not only does this mean

93

that fewer people will come to the school because of it, but also the alumni might not be as successful because of it, depending on the shifting economic demands of workers. To the degree that alumni are ambassadors for the school their failure to potentially reflect healthy normative traits of the present and future will compromise their ability to advocate for the The Gunnery experience. Then, if the world becomes even more progressive, this will become even more impactful. In an extremely progressive society, the severe failure to advance the culture of the school in the coming years will result in a downward spiral in which the school will lose much of its base due to lack of favor in the outside community. Stated more optimistically, a progressive, purposeful, and affirmative process to meet the world in its future will strengthen the school in all regards and in all missions.

94

Chapter 17 | Changing it Now that I have delineated the flaws in the process of coeducation at The Gunnery (a difficult, but necessary, introspective), I want the reader to understand the cyclical nature of gender inequity. That understanding may lead to a break in the cycle. In order to look at the cycle of culture at The Gunnery, it is necessary to realize that it is an empirical phenomenon. The culture of the school is the summation of the values of all the individuals at the school. So, when all of the individuals at the school have certain perspectives and expectations that push females to the fringe of the culture of the school, their actions, language, and value system will establish this as the definite culture of the school. Culture is a very dynamic thing in that it is always capable of shifting. By having certain role models, speakers, and events, the culture can be changed drastically at a school, especially since the students are still in their formative years. So, culture is something that tends to build on itself and continue to become more extreme unless actively righted and proactively guided towards a healthy institutional vision.

So, with all of that being said, here are two diagrams illustrating the cycle of culture at The Gunnery:

Admissions Department Decisions

Art programs not very good so not much funding

Poor Arts Programs

Attracts fewer artistic students

95

Favorable Admissions Policy

A Masculine Culture Pervades

Good Sports Teams

More Kids Attracted to the school by

The first place that the culture of the school is determined is in the admissions department. As mentioned before, the culture of the school is empirical and determined by the traits of the many people who make up the community of the school. Decisions made in the admissions department are very important in determining the culture of the school. First, the ratio of boys to girls is something that is very important in determining the gender culture of the school. If the school has more boys than girls, chances are the culture will be dominated by the mindsets and traits of the males. Thus, when the school has a gender imbalance, the culture often reflects that fact.

More specifically, it is not simply whether the admissions department accepts more boys than girls, it also is very important what types of boys and girls are admitted into the school. For example, the school could admit a significant majority of boys, yet many of the boys have interests in “feminine� disciplines, so the culture remains more neutral. Furthermore, the admissions department in part determines important personality traits held by the student body.

For instance, whether or not the student body is open-minded with their peers or sexist can in

96

part be determined by good admissions work in selecting children of character to attend the school.

The part where the cyclical nature of the culture comes into play is that the decisions made by the admissions committee to have fewer girls than boys translates into other aspects of the school. When the school has more boys than girls and thus a culture more focused on the masculine aspects of the campus than the feminine ones, the masculine aspects become more developed. Sports take precedent over the arts when the culture of the school favors boys over the girls. Then, with more focus on sports over the arts, the arts begin to fall further behind as they need special attention in order to be developed. Next, because the arts programs are weaker than the sports programs, the school attracts more athletes than artists and the culture of the school weakens. It is similar with the academic aspect of the school. With more males than females, the masculine disciplines within the academic system take precedent over the feminine ones in terms of focus. In turn, the masculine disciplines develop into better programs than their feminine counterparts. Then, more masculine students are attracted to the school due to better programs in the disciplines that are considered to be masculine. The resulting vicious, selfpropagating cycle must be actively countered.

The other main aspect of the culture of the school is the leadership, whether it be student or administrative. The leadership of the school has the potential to change the culture of the school through certain initiatives, invited speakers, and the introduction of ideas. Both the students and the faculty often vote in elections deciding the leadership of the student body. The student leadership is meant to reflect the current values of the school. When the school is an overwhelmingly masculine place in terms of the culture that it presents, the student leadership will likely reflect this. Thus, the students’ leaders often come to perpetuate the culture of the school as he or she reflects the current values of the school. Furthermore, every adult at the school is a leader. From the classroom history teacher to the Head of School, all faculty members are role models for the students. Thus, when the school hires people, it must be extremely cognizant of exactly who they are bringing in to be role models for the students as each faculty plays a large role in determining the culture of the school. So, if the school has more boys than girls and a culture surrounding sports rather than the arts, the school will likely hire more faculty supporting the sports program than the arts program. This results in a majority of faculty members who are more focused on the sports aspect of the school than the arts, and thus the

97

culture of the school is perpetuated. The balance becomes unhealthy and counter to the mission of academic and character development.

As demonstrated so far in this chapter, the culture of the school is something that perpetuates and amplifies itself until it becomes fundamental and nearly inextricable to the constitution of the school. However, as demonstrated, there are a number of key entry points to culture that can change the pervasive culture if that is desired. As mentioned before, the first main aspect is that of admissions. The admissions department at The Gunnery has the power to greatly affect the culture of the school. The decision to go to a 50/50 ratio of boys and girls would drastically affect the culture of the school, as there would no longer be masculine traits dominating the student body. This does not simply point to an issue of letting enough girls into the school during admissions decisions. Rather, a more long-term strategy is to broaden the pool of female applicants so that there will be strong female candidates for years to come.

Furthermore, having an active focus on admitting students of artistic ability would shift the culture, as it would likely mean the betterment of the arts program. This would mean that it would be more culturally significant in the school, leading to further improvement, which would in turn lead to more artistic students at The Gunnery. It is a fallacy to position our institution as meeting or reflecting the market’s desire for specialization or emphasis in certain disciplines, fundamentally because the critically formative function that prep schools have relates to the age of the students where character development must be wholistic and balanced so as not to constrain in the best case or damage in the worst. Perhaps, if prep schools were educating mature adults, specialization and emphasis would be less damaging. The next area of focus should be leadership of the school. By having faculty leadership that is more focused on achieving gender equity, this will likely shift the culture to being more neutral in terms of gender. By hiring more faculty for the arts, the arts program becomes more culturally significant and the same selfreinforcing effect of furthered success bringing more resources occurs. Furthermore, the culture of the school can be affected by efforts as simple as speakers’ series in which there is a focus on, or at least a respect for, gender equality. Thus, even though the culture of the school is susceptible to becoming unequal, and thus unhealthy, on the basis of gender, there are several entrance or leverage points where an active policy can gain traction to influence culture expeditiously.

98

The question that comes up when seeking to change the culture of the school is exactly how far the school should go to actively readjust that culture. One could argue that if the premise that the present culture is excessively masculine in the traits it promotes or the disciplines it favors, an active attempt to change the culture by introducing policies favoring more feminine aspects is warranted. Others would offer the counterpoint that this should be avoided because it involves favoring one gender of the other, utilizing the very tool that created the unhealthy balance in the first place. However, this is not really an either/or choice when seen in the paradigm of promoting a healthy balance of traits and characters that largely will someday likely cease to be so inextricably tied to gender identity. That is one of the main decision points that the school has to make if and when it decides to change the culture of the school.

99

Chapter 18 | Current State Given our contemporary point of view regarding the present state of gender equity, critical assessment is necessarily difficult. Critically evaluating one’s own time and circumstance carries with it unavoidable bias and an inherent shortsightedness. It is hard to look through the complexity of the present and make simplifications that only time will furnish. However difficult the task, it is appropriate to measure progress against the benchmarks or reference points that I have established thus far in the paper.

First and foremost, parity has not been reached in the ratio of boys to girls. It currently sits at around 60% males and 40% females. Although the ratio has converged, it is still not equal.

The intensity of the issues creates have been mitigated in part due to the better ratio.

Nevertheless, the issues persist.

Earlier in the paper, I described how The Gunnery (among other schools) took a “genderblind” approach in the transition to coeducation. In this model, the girls are put into the same framework that existed when boys were the only gender represented at the school. Thus, a focus on athletics in preference to arts and other extra-curriculars resulted in a masculinization of the female student experience. In analogous fashion, the focus on academic disciplines was skewed toward the more traditionally masculine subjects of science and high-level math. The school has not substantially deviated or evolved away from this approach. There is still a significant focus on the stereotypically male aspects of the school. It has been said that the school is 60% athletics and 40% arts, or split along the line of the male: female ratio. Furthermore, even though the arts programs have improved in recent years, there is still preferential focus on the athletic mission of the school.

Additionally, the girls’ athletics have not improved at the same rate as the boys’. There is not as much spending in terms of scholarships on girls’ sports as compared to boys’ sports. There certainly are some great female athletes at the school, and thus some great teams, but there is not the same institutional focus culturally. Within the social realm of the school, boys’ sports are typically regarded as more exciting and serious than the girls’ sports despite similar levels of commitment and competition on the part of the athletes.

There remain meaningful issues within the academic realm in terms of gender expectations and stereotyping. For example, females consistently express the challenge of being

100

heard in a class dominated by louder male students. To this day, we have gender-segregated precalculus classes at the school for this very reason; the segregation allows female students to act collaboratively rather than competitively. But, this does not occur with every class, nor does it address the root cause of the issue. Additionally, several females have felt pressured by genderstereotypes in regards to their class selection. Some have voiced concern that they do not feel encouraged to participate in high-level math and science classes.

However, the current Headmaster, Mr. Becker, has been instituting changes that will be conducive to gender equality. First of all, Mr. Becker has chosen to move away from the typical 11-man football team to a newer, 8-man style. Previously, the football program was an expensive component of The Gunnery athletic program. Furthermore, football had been solidified as the feature sport during the fall term despite a very successful field hockey program. Thus, by ramping the program back slightly, it allows for a number of things to happen. This allows more funding of girls’ athletics and other extra-curriculars. Furthermore, it allows field hockey the stage and focus that they deserve. Not only is this good for the field hockey program in particular, but it also is good for the female athletic program in general. It allows them a stage on which they can prove the worth of the program and the opportunity to alter the culture that has been heavily skewed in preference to the male sports program.

Further, many of the post-graduate boys that help to make the ratio between boys and girls unequal are football players. By switching to 8-man and thus having a smaller roster, there should be fewer post-graduate boys. Thus, the imbalance in the ratio is slightly corrected by having fewer post-graduate boys and this will serve to ease the resulting inequities in gender experience at The Gunnery.

In addition to the move relating to football, the school administration has decided to build a new girls’ dorm on campus. This will also allow for normalization of the ratio between boys and girls as more girls can now comfortably reside on campus. Furthermore, it will be an attractive recruiting feature for girls touring the campus, which will likely boost female enrollment.

Thus, based on the simple benchmarks that define a modern notion of equity, The Gunnery is just beginning to make substantive progress on the front of gender equity.

Clearly, the school is committed to actively achieving gender equality in all aspects of The Gunnery experience. It is clear that only through active and purposeful engagement of leadership

101

will the goal be realized. One can say with confidence, that given sufficient time and resources, Mr. Becker will bring the school to its objective of gender equity for all students.

102

Appendix I completed a survey of over 500 alumni of The Gunnery. Although the results substantiated the results I found throughout the project, I considered the sample size too small to be sure about the results. Therefore, I decided to withhold them from the body of the paper.

103

Works Cited Andrea Wells Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson and Paula Krimsky]. 2015. (Wells Interview).

Ann Lipham Watson Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Lipham Watson Interview).

Alumni Association Minutes. The Gunnery Archives. (Alumni Minutes).

Birch, R. (1988). In Pursuit of Equity: A Study of Coeducation at The Gunnery. The Gunnery Archives. (Birch).

Carole Rowe Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (C. Rowe Interview).

Coed-Facilities. The Gunnery Archives: Drawer X. (Coed-Facilities).

Coed Finances. The Gunnery Archives: Drawer X. (Coed Finances).

Coed Planning. The Gunnery Archives: Drawer X. (Coed Planning).

Coed Scheduling. The Gunnery Archives: Drawer X. (Coed Scheduling).

Coeducation and Enrollment Growth. Taft School. (Enrollment Growth Taft).

Coeducation Folder. Taft School. (Coed Folder Taft).

Cookson, P.W. & Persell, C.H. (1985). Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding Schools.

New York: Basic Books. (Cookson & Persell).

Coordination. The Gunnery Archives: Drawer X. (Coordination).

Dalton, K. M. (1986). A Portrait of a School: Coeducation at Andover. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/portraitofschool00kath. (Dalton).

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2015, http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html.

Deziel, C. (n.d). Hippie Values and Beliefs. Retrieved from http://classroom.synonym.com/hippie-values-beliefs-5594.html. (Deziel).

Edward Small Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Small Interview).

Esty, J. C. (1969, October 2). [Letter to Faculty at Taft School]. (Esty Letter to Faculty).

Esty, J. C. (1969, September 25). [Letter to Board of Trustees at Taft School]. (Esty Letter to Board of Trustees).

104

Gibson, William H. Hamilton, Ed. Master of the Gunnery. The Gunn Memorial Association.

New York. 1887. (Gibson).

Gilchrist, Alison. Taft Archivist. Telephone interview. 2015. (Gilchrist).

Gunn, F.W. "Confidence between Boys and their Teachers." Speech at Hartford Teachers' Convention. 1877. (Gunn).

Hamilton, A. (2004). A Vision for Girls: Gender, Education, and the Bryn Mawr School.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Hamilton).

Heidi Rowe Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (H. Rowe Interview).

Johnson Family Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Johnson Interview).

Kurten, G. (1973). The Gunnery-Wykeham ISP Project. The Gunnery Archives. (Kurten ISP).

Messina, Eileen. Head of School's Office Trustee Tenure Report. Gunnery Archives. 2010.

(Messina).

Michael Eanes Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Eanes Interview).

Michael Spence Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Spence Interview).

Neklason, A., & Murree, R. (2014). The End of Abbot: How the 1973 Merger with Phillips Academy Became a Takeover [Scholarly project]. (Neklason Murree).

Paula Krimsky Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015-2016. (Krimsky Interview).

Report on Trustees Decision. Hotchkiss School. (Hotchkiss Trustees Decision).

Richard Cobb Interview. [Interview by Evan Johnson]. 2015. (Cobb Interview).

Roberts, Paige. Andover Archivist. Telephone Interview. 2015 (Roberts).

Satanvosky, G. (n.d). First National Women’s Rights Convention. Retrieved from http://www.famousdaily.com/history/first-womens-rights-convention-begins.html.

(Satanvosky).

Snyder, R.C. (2008). What is Third-Wave Feminism? A New Directions Essay. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588436?seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents. (Snyder).

So, Soo Jin. The Road to Women's Rights. The Gunnery Archives. 2012. (So).

Student Attendance. Gunn Museum Archive. (Gunn Museum).

Task Force on Coeducation. Report to Headmaster. Taft School. (Taft Coeducation Report to Headmaster).

The Human System of the Taft School (Rep.). Taft School. (Human System Taft).

Xu, J. (2015). Setting the Pace [Scholarly project]. The Gunnery Archives. (Xu).

105

(1905). Stray Shot. The Gunnery Archives. (Stray Shot).

(1967, October 7). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1967, October 28). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1967, December 9). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, January 20). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, February 3). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, February 17). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, March 9). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, May 18). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, May 27). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, October 15). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, November 2). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1968, November 18). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, March 12). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, May 3). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, May 24). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, October 13). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, November 8). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1969, December 6). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1970). Taft Alumni Bulletin. Taft School. (Taft Alumni Bulletin).

(1970, March 11). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

106

(1970, April 25). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1970, October 4). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1970, October 31). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, February 27). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, April 17). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, May 8). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, May 21). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, November 20). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, October 9). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, October 30). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1971, December 11). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, January 29). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, February 19). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, March 14). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, May 8). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, May 29). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, September 16). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, October 11). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1972, December 12). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

(1973, January 27). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx.

107

(1973, February 10). Taft Papyrus. Retrieved from http://www.taftschool.org/about/papyrus.aspx. (Taft Papyrus).

(1974). School Catalogue. The Gunnery Archives. (School Catalogue).

(1976). Red and Gray Yearbook. The Gunnery Archives. .

(1976, January 17). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1967, March 13). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1976, April 24). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1976, June 11). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1976, July 24). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1976, September 25). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1976, December 11). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1977, January 15). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1977, April 16). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1977, May). The Gunnery News. The Gunnery Archives.

(1977, September 24). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1977, November). The Gunnery News. The Gunnery Archives.

(1977, December). The Gunnery News. The Gunnery Archives. (Gunnery News).

(1978). Red and Gray Yearbook. The Gunnery Archives. (Red and Gray).

(1978, January 28). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1978, April 22). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1978, July 22). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1978, September 9). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery.

(1978, December 9). Board Minutes. Bourne Basement, The Gunnery. (Board Minutes).

(2008). The Gunnery Bulletin. The Gunnery Archives. (Bulletin 2008).

108