From the beginning of their existence, the meaning of a women’s college and its relevance has plagued the political sphere of the United States.
Questions have morphed over the decades—“Do women deserve spaces dedicated to education? Should women go to college?” or “Do we still need women’s colleges in a time when the majority of colleges admit women?”—but the main examination plaguing women’s colleges today remains the same as it was a hundred years ago: what is the meaning of “women’s college”? In a time when what it means to be a gender minority and what it means to be a woman is constantly shifting, this question has remained strong in the minds of feminists and gender theorists alike. As a non-binary person attending a women’s college, this question has been a core factor in my daily life.
The History of Women’s Colleges
When the idea of a “women’s college” was first introduced, it was in response to the fact that very few colleges would admit women into their institutions. Over the course of several years, hundreds of women’s colleges opened and, in response, many high-level institutions, such as the Ivy League, established women’s colleges to admit women when the main college refused to do so. However, as male-dominated colleges began to admit more and more women, the number of those women-only institutions began to fall, and fall dramatically: although there were hundreds of colleges in the early 1900s, only 40 remained in 2020. That number is even lower in 2023, sitting around 27 or 28. (“The History and Impact of Women’s Colleges”)
But what does this mean to the importance of a women’s college? Why did so many colleges close—or be absorbed into their main parent institutions (like Radcliffe College and Harvard University)?
The Identity of Women’s Colleges
The focus of a women’s college is undoubtedly that—women—and, in that identity, women’s colleges have been in the forefront of many discussions regarding the meaning of womanhood and the expectations of gender performance.
Wellesley College, for example, states that while they accept the applications of transgender women and non-binary applicants, they particularly only accept non-binary applicants who “were assigned female at birth and who feel they belong in our community of women” (FAQ – Wellesley College). Bryn Mawr College states the same, but in longer terms:
Bryn Mawr College considers as eligible to apply to the undergraduate college all individuals who have identified and continue to identify as women (including cisgender and trans women), intersex individuals who do not identify as male, individuals assigned female at birth who have not taken medical or legal steps to identify as male, and individuals assigned female at birth who do not identify within the gender binary.
Transgender Applicants Policy – Bryn Mawr
My own college, Barnard, makes note of only accepting women (including transgender women, as of 2015). In the FAQ section of their Transgender Policy, there is one particular question of interest: Are individuals who identify as non-binary or gender non-conforming eligible for admission? The answer? “Barnard accepts applications from those who consistently live and identify as women. To be considered for admission, application materials should support this self-identification” (Transgender Policy – Barnard College). Bummer.
All three of these colleges are members of the Seven Sisters, or at least what remains of the Seven Sisters that still consider themselves women’s colleges (Radcliffe College, aforementioned, no longer exists as an undergraduate or women’s college, and Vassar began admitting men in 1969). All of these colleges were considered, at their peaks, the “Ivies for women.” All of them are strictly managed, rigorous, and difficult to gain admissions to; and they all, at some point, have worked together—that all being said, what marks such a large difference in their interpretations of “women’s college”?
Is there a singular interpretation of what makes a women’s college? Better yet, is there a singular or correct interpretation of what makes a woman, or what makes a gender minority? These are just more of the questions that these colleges have battled with for decades, but let’s try to grapple with them in a few simple ways.
Is there a singular or correct interpretation of what makes a woman, or what makes a gender minority?
Gender in the 21st century is a complicated topic affected by all avenues of thought — philosophy, religion, morality, politics, and more. Keeping this all in mind, what describes a “gender minority”? What is the meaning of “gender” in the first place?
The Purpose of a Women’s College in Modern Day
Let’s assume that a college is built for the advancement of education (an oversimplified idea by far); therefore, a women’s college is built for the advancement of women in education. If a women’s college is built for the advancement of women, why? A possible answer…? when women’s colleges were first established, women were underrepresented in higher education.
How has that goal changed with time? If the ultimate goal of a women’s college is to represent and serve a community with a low level of representation in higher education, then that goal is now void: in 2021, a study revealed that women outnumber men in completing a college degree (Georgetown University). Certainly women still face many, many injustices in a patriarchal society like the United States, but is that something women’s colleges are equipped to respond to, or are these colleges more-so a facade of previous goals — an institution built for maintaining the wealth and class of those in power above them? Barnard, for example, has a long history of indebtedness, struggling since its founding to maintain a stream of wealth able to support its students and faculty; in modern day, the College is astronomically reliant upon extreme donations from families like that of the Vageloses (multiple buildings on the small, four-block campus) and Glicker-Milsteins (other buildings and programs); not only that, but it is reliant upon Columbia, a co-ed university. As compared to the other sister schools, Barnard’s endowment fund is considerably smaller.
This is a problem that has been resolved in the past through mergers with parent colleges, like Radcliffe and Harvard, but that isn’t particularly an efficient solution either, and still does not serve towards the goal that colleges like these were built for. Aside from “a community of women,” what do these schools provide that others do not? — An institution built by and for women. Even in an age where women complete more degrees than men, it is still comforting to find solace from a patriarchal world in the presence of people like you (a woman surrounded by women). That is a purpose which should not be ignored.
Womanhood and Gender Minority Statuses
Womanhood can be defined in many different ways, but all of these colleges seem to have taken that identity in the same direction: placing it into the hands of the applicant and student. That is important because it assists in recognizing the blurred lines between gender identities: while one may not hold every identity placed upon womanhood in a particular person’s opinion, they may in another, and they may even in their own. That is what matters: to “live and identify as a woman,” whether that means by being a cisgender woman, transgender woman regardless of how far in their transition they may be or their understanding of what that transition would look like, or etc.
Where do genderqueer people fall into this? Within the past twenty or so years, the identities of genderqueer people have become incredibly visible in the United States in a way that they had not been in the past (and, by the way, gender non-conforming people are not a new concept). This is a group of people who are marginalized in more ways than one: economically, educationally, socially, and more — people whose entire lives are constantly in question, whose identities have become the plaything of governmental bodies, whose existence has become a legal matter which in some cases has been pushed to mean imprisonment (like this proposed law in West Virginia or these many bills introduced in Texas and a variety of others). All of this is to say — do genderqueer people not fall into the categories prescribed in the very goal of women’s colleges? If the purpose of a women’s college is, we assume, to educate the “women who will make a difference in the world” (Wellesley), then why not apply that to all gender minorities, to non-men? If the goal of these colleges is to fight against the patriarchy, what is this risking?
Do genderqueer people not fall into the categories prescribed in the very goal of women’s colleges?
… Of course, this opens up entire new doors on the problem: if we can define womanhood as one identifying and living as a woman under their own beliefs, then what can we define as genderqueer, or as non-man? Two of the three colleges mentioned earlier in this article do admit genderqueer/non-binary applicants, but only those assigned female at birth. What does this mean to genderqueerness? What does the fact that these people are allowed in at all mean to the identity of a woman’s college?
The main problem is that this perpetuates the idea that non-binary people, as a conglomerate, only identify with femininity and only require the support that women receive; they are forced, therefore, into a binary that their identity was meant to let them escape. This is marked even more by the fact that at these colleges, only AFAB (assigned female at birth) non-binary people are allowed to apply.
This article does a great job at identifying the problems with throwing “non-binary” or “genderqueer” people into a space with women and calling it inclusivity, but I think there is one major factor often overlooked: although these colleges or, in the context of the article, careers and clubs, may want to be more inclusive with their language, that is not the only problem afoot. The most major issue, in my opinion, is that of false security.
Support and Security
A false sense of security is defined as any situation that “makes you believe that you are safe when you are not” (Collins Dictionary).
Applicably, this is more than clear at the majority of women’s colleges today. Out of those that claim to accept gender non-conforming people, for example, actual resources for these people are few and far between; of those colleges which do not accept gender non-conforming people but claim to support those already within the institution who are transitioning, support is typically impossible to find anywhere but in close friends and partners. The facilities and services at these multi-million-dollar institutions lack in almost every way, guiding applicants into a false sense of security which suffocates those within and pushes many to end up leaving their educational journey behind before graduating. Colleges will continue to use feminine language, offer health services excluding transgender health and offered only in regards to female-born bodies, or have record-keeping programs which cannot support name-changes, for example. This goes beyond just education: it expands to the entire experience of university life, a time where one needs as much support as necessary.
In Finality
The debate about women’s colleges goes beyond what can be briefed in an article — it’s an entire subject that could be divided amongst a career of research. Those whom we turn to with answers are still faced with confusion and insecurity: the anxieties of institutions and the conflicting beliefs of different sources can be felt deep into the political sphere of the United States, which has already been heavily affected by transphobia, gender revolution, and acts of violence.
What can you do? Go out, learn more, and do your own research – develop your own opinions. Advocate, raise your own voice and the voices of transgender people, and be your own person.