Feminism Gone Awry at B.C.

At Boston College, the concept of "feminism" has been reduced to the level of a fourth-grade playground Squabble. With all of the indignant righteousness normally reserved for young children and glassy-eyed absolutists, Professor Mary Daly asserted to the academic community last week that "the root of the mess in society is patriarchy." Turning away potential male students at the door with the words "you are not welcome here," Daly has decreed that no male students can enroll in her "Introduction to Feminist Ethics" course. Her contention is that their presence would constitute a distraction to female student engaged in emotional and intellectual feminist debates.

In other words, no boys allowed.

This is not an unusual taunt for Daly. At 70, the self-described radical has been known as a crusader for her brand of feminism since she first began teaching at then all-male Boston College in 1966. At the beginning, the struggle was for equal recognition and equal opportunities. Denied tenure in 1969 without a concrete explanation, Daly protested loudly and was supported by 1,500 of her male students. The uproar has been considered an important catalyst for the school's decision to go co-ed in 1970.

In the three decades since, Daly has written seven books in the field of feminist theology and philosophy and a dictionary for "wicked women." And, true to form, she has remained at he center of several self-generated controversies sparked by inflammatory comments on the shortcomings of the male gender.

But lately, the catcalls on both sides of the jungle gym have become louder, more insistent and more difficult to ignore. Faced with a resurgent interest in Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments (which mandates gender equality in all academic situations) the administration can no longer distance themselves from the situation, as they did when similar complaints arose in 1979 and 1989. Consequently, Boston College has issued an ultimatum to Daly: teach men and women together, or don't teach at all.

Daly is similarly stubborn, insisting that she would prefer to hand in her resignation than succumb to what she has labeled "right-wing pressure." "What I am trying to do," she claimed in a recent statement, "is get at the core of what oppresses women,"

But this argument--that there is no room for men in a class about "feminist ethics"--is flawed. Today's co-educational academic community runs against the long-asserted idea that women learn best in an classroom consisting completely of other women.

Single-sex courses have absolutely no place at co-educational institutions, be they universities or graduate schools, the ultimate goal of the movement to integrate women at the level of higher education was to create an environment where both sexes could learn together without regard for gender. If Daly feels this goal has not yet been achieved, how exactly will an all-female course on feminism help to further the cause of women? On that basic level, doesn't it make more sense to teach the virtues of feminism to the men who are supposedly serving as "oppressors"?

The suggestion that men in a class about feminism serve as a "distraction" that disturbs honest and emotional discussion is insulting to women in general. Daly seems to be insinuating that the male presence somehow reduces the value of conversation about feminism; that women can some-how not reach their full potential to express themselves on the topic if--heaven forbid--a man appears. Such a viewpoint is extremely jaded and works to degrade the integrity and abilities of women.

The fact that the administration has chosen to fight Daly from a purely legal standpoint is unfortunate. Caught up in the media frenzy over such related news items as the dissolution of the Greek system at Dartmouth and the admission of men to Radcliffe College's prestigious Bunting Institute, the true issues have been virtually ignored for the larger, more exciting topic of who might possibly be filing a (now highly fashionable) Title IX lawsuit as a result of what recent injustice.

But considering the federal statute for a minute, it is evident Daly's ideal classroom for "Introduction to Feminist Ethics" has not a legal leg to stand upon. Title IX was designed to promote gender equality in education; and while in 1972 the intention was to prevent discrimination against women, it by no means should be used to tip the scales in the other direction for no apparent reason. Perhaps if Boston College had a class entitled "Achieving Manhood: A Celebration of the Male Gender" that turned away female students because they were considered a corrupting influence on debate at large, the violation would be easier to understand.

This is not to imply that single sex education in general cannot be beneficial to a certain extent. And in those colleges that have chosen to remain either all-male or all-female, a class such as the one Daly proposed would be entirely appropriate. The difference lies in remaining faithful to fundamental philosophy, in not making exceptions for one sex that are not made for the other. A single-sex institution is by definition choosing to exclude one or the other gender, and that decision is buttressed by every action the institution makes. Whether or not the individual agrees with this philosophy, there is no real argument because the intent is clear from the very beginning; an applicant knowingly accepts or rejects it by choosing the institutions.

But a co-educational institution that has committed itself to providing equal opportunities for academic excellence has the responsibility to follow through on that commitment. This doesn't preempt debate on the different perspectives of men and women. It does, however, forbid the exclusion of either six from a course completely within the academic sphere, designed purely for the gain of knowledge.

In comparison to this ideal, Daly's need for her course to consist of only women smacks of an ulterior political motive. Ultimately, it is not that there is something wrong with her "radical" views on feminism; it is that she is using the exclusion of men from classroom as a means to promote these views in an arena that has nothing to do with academics.