Discrimination is not a valid solution to inequality
Posted by Martin Havel on March 9, 2010
I posted the following as a response to the Smith Sophian (their school periodical) article:
Before I say anything else, I want to clarify that I’m a man, a feminist, and an advocate for equality and justice. I know Smith well, as I live nearby. It pains me deeply that I’m not an eligible candidate for admission to the college.
I realize that Smith’s environment is a unique one, an environment which is wonderful for women; it is worth pointing out that men can already take classes at Smith through the 5-colleges exchange. I would love to attend Smith, but cannot. But I do not believe that allowing men to enroll in Smith would drastically alter the social dynamic (though it might help to balance the discourse, and might create a dialogue regarding those somewhat offensive bumper-stickers—the ones that imply that men are immature); it would be a very specific sort of man who would want to apply to Smith, and men surely would remain a minority. The only real change would be that men could call themselves Smithies, and could live on Smith’s campus.
Because Smith does not allow men to enroll, and also takes federal money (for financial aid as well as through grants) it is technically in violation of Title IX, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”
Of course, Title IX was passed to help bridge the same gap which Smith seeks to close. It is of note that, recently, women have pulled ahead not only in enrollment in institutions of higher learning, but also in academic success at the colleges. In short, women are on top in undergraduate academia, and are on their way to the top in the professional world as a result. Anything that prevents a woman from equal opportunity (at least in New England) today is a matter of socially programmed prejudice, not a matter of systematic oppression. Because of that, I’m not sure that gender-based exclusion in undergraduate admissions can do anything positive in the quest for equality.
According to the college’s website, “Smith College does not discriminate in its educational and employment policies on the bases of race, color, creed, religion, national/ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or with regard to the bases outlined in the Veterans Readjustment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.” But there is also a section on the website about why Smith thinks it is important to offer services to women exclusively. It certainly seems as though Smith is trying to have it both ways.
I think that it is not a stretch to call Smith’s admissions policies “discriminatory,” for the fact that, no matter how kind a person a man is, and no matter how good a student a man is, and no matter whether he afford it or not, a man is unable to attend classes at Smith as a matriculated student. As I’m sure you are aware, Smith is host to a plethora of world-class academic programs, with intensive student-faculty interaction, the likes of which are unavailable anywhere else (like the school for social work, the global studies center, or the Picker engineering program). Additionally, every one of the tier-1 traditionally men’s schools are now co-ed, but there remain several tier-1 women’s colleges, the largest of which is Smith.
Does inequality help to solve inequality? To paraphrase Justice Roberts (with whom I agree for once), “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of sex is to stop discriminating on the basis of sex.” By providing women with opportunities not available to men, Smith College creates another generation of female leaders, but it also creates a relatively disadvantaged generation of men. I do not mean to belittle the plight of women. I realize that inequalities do still exist. I do not believe that 40 years after most men’s universities opened their doors to female students Smith College may, with right conscience, keep its doors closed to men.
By all means, keep the dorms gendered if you must. Keep men in Smith’s minority if it so pleases you. But please, do not try to justify discrimination by calling it a path to equality. And please, at least let me apply.
