FEW PEOPLE will disagree with the Augusta National Golf Club’s decision to allow women to join as members (“Augusta finally joins golf’s inclusive movement,” Sports, Aug. 21). Even though women were allowed to play as non-member guests previously, for many women golfers, this was a long-time goal and an avenue to circles of power and influence in the business world.
In a similar fashion, one might hope that many of the private women’s colleges in the US will open their admission doors to the best and the brightest of those men who might want to pursue the same opportunities that allowed Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton to become secretaries of state as graduates of Wellesley College. After all, given that these colleges, (unlike the Augusta course) receive millions of dollars of federal funds, why should they be allowed to exclude one-half of the population from their campuses?
Comments
Absolutely true article but you will encounter false arguments by women for their continued existence. These same arguments were not acceptable hold for Augusta but are ok for womens' clubs. even the news media will not continually harp on this injustice but only if its against women. Bias and hypocracy reins supreme!
what kind of opening? Wellesley has Co-ed classes already.
When women make more than 80 cents per dollar that men make, even when those women have more education than the men; when women are equally represented in politics and in business; when women make up about half the membership of Augusta; when women are not exploited and enslaved worldwide; then, and only then, will comments like the one here about the so-called bias and hypocrisy of all-womens' colleges make any sense at all.
Hello, here's a response from Mount Holyoke President Lynn Pasquerella. Kevin McCaffrey Office of the President Mount Holyoke College South Hadley, MA In his recent letter to the Globe, Albert Cardarelli questions why women's colleges continue to admit only women when even such long-standing bastions of male power as the Augusta National Golf Club have decided to set aside their men-only policy. But, Mr. Cardarelli's argument is based, in part, on drawing a false equivalence. In excluding women, Augusta kept women from an old boys' club of powerful business and political leaders, a network that it would be difficult for women, even those in positions of power, to tap into. On the other hand, male applicants to college can choose from hundreds of schools across the country that provide access to high quality education. For 175 years, Mount Holyoke has played a critical role in promoting women's leadership through access to excellence in higher education regardless of socioeconomic background. While the role of women in American society has changed dramatically during this time, our historic mission remains unfinished. Today, 25% of Mount Holyoke's students are international. Through our undergraduate curricula and new initiatives such as the Women in Public Service Project, with the US State Department and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Mount Holyoke and our sister institutions are working to foster the next generation of women leaders around the globe. In doing so, we do not disadvantage men. On the contrary, a world of gender parity will be a better world for both women and men.
Mr. McCaffrey raises spme interesting points, but fails to address the issue as to whether institutions (whatever their programs) can continue to receive federal funds while excluding some part of the population. Imagine the outcry if the Boy Scouts who will not accept gay members were to apply for federal funds to support their programs.