Legitimize the Field

LAST WEEK, Harvard's fourth annual Women's History Week drew substantial attendance and enthusiasm, as it has in the past. But the crowds who flocked to hear Nancy Cott speak on feminist theory only reemphasized the rarity of such an event on campus. The fact remains that the University still has virtually no means of accommodating students who want to study women's history or any other aspect of "women's studies." Such a program is long overdue at Harvard; its absence is a gap that must be filled.

The term "women's studies" encompasses a wide range of specific disciplines in a variety of fields. What they have in common is that they focus on women, introducing facts or methods of analysis which have not previously been taken into account. Many advocates of a women's studies program claim that most of what is taught at Harvard today is "men's studies," and this is true to the extent that facts about women and the different types of influence they exert have been left out of most traditional scholarship, which uses the male as a standard model for evaluation. New and important aspects of "women's studies" include feminist literary criticism; history and government courses which examine women's role in politics, the family, and social revolutions; and post-Freudian psychology which accounts for gaps in the Freudian, male-dominated picture of the human psyche.

Former dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky acknowledged the importance of recognizing the validity of women's studies; i.e. set up a committee three years ago to try to bring Harvard up to the standards of other institutions nationwide. But the committee has been empowered only to search for one scholar to be jointly tenured in women's studies and another field. Last spring renowned feminist literary critic Elaine Showalter, who would have been jointly tenured is women's studies and another field. Last spring renowned feminist literary critic Elaine Showalter, who would have been jointly tenured with the English Department, went instead to Princeton, a university which has demonstrated its commitment to the burgeoning field.

The committee, while consisting of concerned faculty, has postponed any real shaping of a substantive program until this single chair can be filled. Ideally, it expects the newly appointed professor to double as an administrator, chairing the committee and generating an entire program. This is an unrealistically ambitious prospect. It is highly improbable that any single scholar will be able, much less willing, to do all that the committee expects. But as long as the post remains empty, the prospect of women's studies remains nothing but a prospect. Perhaps the University ought to provide funding for two or more posts. But in any case, the difficulty the committee has had in hiring someone indicates another fact: until women's studies is legitimized at Harvard, serious scholars will be difficult to attract. It's high time the committee and the University make good its claim of support, and set up a legitimate, formal program.

A WOMEN'S STUDIES program must by nature be interdisciplinary; the term refers to a whole collection of methods and studies involving women. Nevertheless, it is an academic approach which interested students ought to be allowed to follow, and we agree with those who support the establishment of a degree-granting committee, similar to Social Studies or to History and Literature, set up to allow students to "minor" in the field, allying it with another basic department. Such a program would provide several introductory courses, surveying the range of women's studies disciplines. One such course already exists in General Education 100, "Introduction to Women's Studies," but this overwhelmingly popular offering is only taught in alternate yes. In addition, a women's studies program would offer tutorials designed to help students focus their History or Biology or Literature concentrations on the influence of women.

While the tutorials and offerings of the women's studies program would themselves satisfy a significant need, the existence of such a centralized academic resource would serve an equally important function: it would signal to other, traditional departments that Harvard is finally serious in its commitment to women's studies-- an indication that should spur these departments to increase the small number of courses they offer which examine women at all. And important scholars like Showalter might finally be persuaded to teach at Harvard.

To this date, Harvard remains the only Ivy League institution without any sort of women's studies program or concentration. Although 30 students have applied only one has been allowed to design a special concentration in the discipline. The Government Department's sole course on women and politics left the University with the departure of Ethel Klein for Columbia. Of the History Department's more than 100 courses, the three specifically focusing on women are taught by a junior faculty member who will be on leave next fall and whose future at Harvard is equally uncertain. While Women's History Week demonstrated decisively the enthusiasm on campus for women's studies, unless the committee and the University commit to establishing a real program the most students can hope for is a week of excitement each February.