Women's Colleges and the Worlds We've Made of Them
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2013 Peopling the Cloister: Women's colleges and the worlds we've made of them Caroline Simmons Leigh Hasenyager William & Mary - School of Education Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Other Education Commons, United States History Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Hasenyager, Caroline Simmons Leigh, "Peopling the Cloister: Women's colleges and the worlds we've made of them" (2013). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1550154085. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-rbbc-dy72 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Peopling the Cloister: Women’s Colleges and the Worlds We've Made of Them, 1837-1937 Caroline Simmons Leigh Hasenyager New York, New York Master of Arts, College of William and Mary, 2004 Bachelor of Arts, Smith College, 2002 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Lyon G. Tyler Department of History The College of William and Mary May 2013 © Copyright by Caroline Simmons Leigh Hasenyager 2013 APPROVAL PAGE This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Caroline SimmonsfLeigh Hasenyager Approved by the Committee, December, 2012 Committee Chain Associate Professor, Leisa M^Wr, History, The College of William ana Mary Professor, Carol Sheriff, History, The College of William and Mary Professor, Lu Ann Hofn^a, History The College of WNHar^and Mary I Professor/Mary C. Kelley, Hjstory, University of Michigac ABSTRACT This dissertation examines ten of the United States' leading women’s colleges within the dual contexts of their development and ever-fluctuating public image. It traces their struggle to become liberal arts institutions on a par with the most prestigious men’s colleges, as well as the mainstream public’s uneasy fascination with them and habit of both honoring the colleges as beacons of ideal womanhood and damning them for the non-normative social, political, and sexual ideologies they supposedly promote. American cultural discourse has long connected education and citizenship, and women's education has never been free of the larger debate over women's role and authority in American life. The public has long taken for granted its right to inspect, comment upon, and police that education. Added to this proprietary sense is an ingrained cultural ambivalence toward educated women, and both a fascination with and skepticism of autonomous women’s environments. As a result, few institutions have felt the weight of public scrutiny as acutely as women’s colleges. As wealthy colleges associated with the privileged classes that long dominated American politics, they are literally part of the elite. But as women’s institutions, predicated on the belief that women are capable of and entitled to the same education as men, they are not only fundamentally different from the status quo, but potentially at odds with it as well. Focusing on the years between Mount Holyoke College’s founding in 1837 and its centenary in 1937, this dissertation discusses the first four generations of women to pursue higher education-the “Seminary” (1837-65), “first” (1865-90), “second” (1890-1920), and “third” (1920-40) generations. It also examines the external social and political forces that made higher education for women both increasingly attractive and increasingly suspicious, and the volatile tides of public opinion that the colleges had to navigate. Between 1837 and 1937, these elite colleges emerged as the nation's most visible seats of women's autonomy, and thus as a prime location for anxieties about American women. The colleges captured public attention because of the audacity of their ambition to offer the same education that had for centuries represented masculine education and power. They kept that attention because of the inherent mystique exercised by an all-female community and because the public has always sensed the contradiction that lies at the colleges’ core: They are simultaneously bastions of privilege and potenial engines of radical change. Neither image is more or less accurate than the other and both have profoundly shaped the colleges’ actual experiences as well as popular understandings of them. The national conversation about these colleges has served as a forum in which Americans have debated not only the role and purpose of the educated woman, but also issues of women’s citizenship, their expected contributions to society, and even the very definition of desirable, normative womanhood. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Introduction 1 Chapter 1. “The Convent at Saint Lyons”: Higher Education for Women in the Era of Manifest Destiny 20 Chapter 2. “The secret garden of the mind:” Claiming a Man’s Education 55 Chapter 3. “Totally Ignorant of the Things They Should Know”: Domestic Science, Professional Training, and “Womanly” Education 101 Chapter 4. “Grinds,” “Queer Girls,” and “Intellectual Monstrosities”: Andromaniacs, Inverts, and the “Unsexing” Power of Women’s Colleges 155 Chapter 5. “Those wild, perverted, female Bolsheviks”: Equal Education, Equal Rights, and the Myth of the Radical Woman’s College 207 Chapter 6. “Of all the fool things in the world”: Modern Life, Modern Womanhood, and the “Relevance” of Women’s Colleges 259 Bibliography 319 Vita 342 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS History is supposedly a solitary pursuit and researching and writing a dissertation an isolating experience, but many people contributed to this dissertation. I could not have asked for a more supportive adviser than Leisa Meyer. She believed in this project even when I had doubts, and without her endless patience, good humor, insights, feedback, and refusal to tolerate my self- deprecation, I never would have finished. I owe her so much that I am even willing her forgive her for years of insisting I clearly define my terms, and to acknowledge that, as usual, she was right. My other committee members have have been encouraging and enormously helpful both in reviewing my dissertation and offering suggestions for the future manuscript. I will always be grateful to Carol Sheriff for rekindling my interest in nineteenth-century history, and for permanently impressing the “so what?” question upon my brain. Before she was one of my readers, Lu Ann Homza was a teaching mentor and modeled a no-nonsense teaching style of toughness, humor, and academic rigor to which I continually aspire. I thank Mary Kelley for her willingness to be my outside reader, interest in and wonderful feedback of my project, and kind words and Seven Sisters anecdotes during my defense. This dissertation would not have been possible without the patient assistance of many archivists and reference librarians. In particular I’d like to thank Nanci Young at the Smith College Archives; Patricia Albright at the Mount Holyoke College Archives; Jane Callahan at the Wellesley College Archives; Anna Cook at the Massachusetts Historical Society; Kate Dannals at the Goucher College Archives; Donald Glassman at the Barnard College Archives; Bettina Manzo at the Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary; Dean Rogers at the Vassar College Archives and Special Collections; David Smith at the research division at the New York Public Library; and the many kind and helpful staff members at the Amherst College Archives and Special Collections; the Mills College Archives; the Schlesinger Library at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study; and the Sophia Smith Collection. I am also grateful to the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and the New England Regional Fellowship Consortium for generous research fellowships; to Jody Allen and the Lemon Project for providing both funding and an exciting oral history project to get me through the final year of writing; to the Office of Graduate Studies and Research and the Charles Center at the College of William and Mary for numerous research grants; and especially to the Lyon G. Tyler Department of History at the College of William and Mary for years of funding and teaching opportunities. I owe special thanks to Drs. Jim and Carolyn Whittenburg, not only for employing me for countless summers, but also for their warmth, kindness, faith in my teaching abilities, and patience with my slow dance with the big white vans. There is no way to adequately acknowledge everything they have done for me throughout my William and Mary career. To my fellow instructors with the National Institute of American History and Democracy, and especially to Dave Corlett, thank you for your companionship during many 100-degree days, and for everything you have taught me. I have been enormously fortunate in my graduate cohort at the College of William and Mary, and cannot thank my fellow students enough for years of fellowship, parties, movie nights, board games, shopping, and shrub-drinking. Ellen Adams, Sarah McLennan, Sarah Grunder, Rachael Headrick, Kristen Proehl, Andrew Sturtevant, Josh Beatty, Caroline Morris, Dave McCarthy, Lucie Kyrova, Sean Harvey, Emily Moore, Merit Kaschig, John Weber, Evan Cordulack, Kim Mann,