No Sex in Education/Chapter 9

"Par le degré de liberté dont jouissent les femmes, se mesure exactement, dans chaque pays, dans chaque siècle, le degré de civilisation que les hommes ont atteint."—Emile de Girardin.

THE publication of "Sex in Education" has been productive of a good result in calling out the testimony which has been accumulating in favor of identical and co-education wherever the experiment has been really tried, and in attracting the attention of the public to this testimony. The following facts come from the Michigan State University at Ann Arbor, and were published in the Christian Register by the Rev. H. H. Bingham:

"About eighty of the students are of the sex which ​some call 'weaker,' but which here at any rate is shown to be equal in endurance, in courage, in perseverance, in devotion to study and in cheerful confidence to the strong and stalwart men. The health of the women who are here now is in almost every instance excellent. I am assured by intelligent ladies in all the departments that there is not a single instance of sickness which has come from over-study, or from any cause connected with the routine of the college-life. In one or two cases the inconvenience of a weak constitution, of weak eyes and sensitive nerves, has been felt, and one of the most vigorous of the sisters has been confined to her chamber for some weeks by a sprained ankle. But it is the unanimous testimony, as I learn, of the ladies who are studying law and medicine and science and the arts in the class-rooms and lecture-rooms and library and laboratory, that their health was never better, that they had had no attacks of malady, and that they ask for no indulgence on account of their sex. Most of them, indeed, are out of their teens, and beyond the age to which the warnings of Dr. Clarke's book apply. But of the twenty or more whom I personally know not one complains, and they look to be in better health than the average of young women.

******

"Some say that it is too soon to pronounce upon the success of the experiment of co-education here; but ​if the opinion of the women themselves and of the teachers who teach them is to be accepted, the experiment in the present season is as successful physically as it is intellectually. The women are as strong and hearty to all appearance, and have not found their sex an obstacle to their activity and comfort in study."

There is one statement that this writer makes which is worthy of attention. He says: "Most of them, indeed, are out of their teens, and beyond the age to which the warnings of Dr. Clarke's book apply." Dr. Clarke has himself entirely ignored the fact that the college-life of a young woman begins, or should begin, at an age more mature than that which is occupied by the metamorphosis from childhood into womanhood—an age when, according to his own reasoning, the woman need observe only a modified "periodicity" of rest. Therefore all his arguments against the admission of girls into Harvard on these grounds seem inapplicable and useless. It would be giving a girl a man's education with a vengeance to admit her within the college-doors at the age of fifteen, or even of eighteen. The few boys who ​begin their college studies as early in life as this had far better be remanded back to the preparatory school, or, rather, to a life of freedom from study, until they shall become more mature, and better fitted to undertake the severe mental labor before them.

The girls of Vassar are indignant that Dr. Clarke should dare to insinuate that they suffer in health from their modes of study. The Vassar Miscellany, published quarterly by the students of that college, contains a critical notice of "Sex in Education" from which we give the following extract:

"While we cannot read Dr. Clarke's book without feeling that it is, in the main, wisely written and deserving of consideration, it is equally impossible not to discover his mistakes. By far the greater part of his advice and warning is given to girls between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. We do not, then, understand why he should attack colleges, the average age of whose students is over eighteen years. His medical lore would have been used to far better advantage had it been turned upon the public schools. There the strictest rules are enforced. There change of position is not unfrequently forbidden, and one must often sit ​as nearly motionless as possible for hours. There an excuse from any duty is obtained with the greatest difficulty. There the regimen is infinitely harder than at a college. In the latter greater freedom is allowed, nearly all restraint removed and excuses easily obtained. We have tried them both. We know that public schools, with their strict confinement and overpressure in study, do more to injure the health of girls and boys than colleges, from their very nature, can do. We do not think that Dr. Clarke can justly apply his remarks to college students, since they are, for the most part, over eighteen years of age. He does so, however; and not content with assailing colleges where co-education has been introduced, he aims a blow at Vassar, where such a system of education never has been, and probably never will be, attempted. It is evidently done in utter ignorance of Vassar rules and Vassar life. Dr. Clarke takes one isolated example, of some imprudent girl who acted directly contrary to the advice she, in common with the other students, must have received from the resident physician. The young woman deserved to faint in gymnastics if she would not take the trouble to obtain the readily-given leave of absence.

"We can give to Dr. Clarke's one example many of an opposite character. Students worn out with hard work in school and an irregular life outside of school-hours, with others grown morbid through ​a village-life of inactivity and lack of pleasant companionship and sympathy, have, at Vassar, regained their health.

"Dr. Clarke says: 'In our schools it is the ambitious and conscientious girls, those who have in them the stuff of which the noblest women are made, that suffer, not the romping or lazy sort.' Here the students who suffer most from illness are the lazy, not the diligent, girls, we say. The following is an extract from 'Sex in Education:' '"I never saw so many pretty girls together," said Lady Amberley to the writer, after a visit to the public schools of Boston; and then added, "They all looked sick." Miss Mary Carpenter, accustomed to be with English girls, after a visit to Vassar and an inspection of the thorough course of study there pursued, remarked of the students, "And we must admit that they have superior health. It is most extraordinary!"' If Vassar students can complete their course, and yet improve in health from the time of entering until graduation—which they do—they would not suffer from a system of co-education; for no system of co-education would be harder. Besides the course of study, not inferior, a student at Vassar bears the oppression of an ever-present crowd and the monotony necessarily incurred from her seclusion. In spite of these drawbacks, which would be avoided in many coeducational institutions, Vassar graduates are stronger, better developed, than an equal number of girls out​side. Dr. Clarke must also accept the testimony of Western colleges whose women graduates are strong and well to-day."

This is only the beginning of our testimony. The Springfield Republican, speaking of the author of "Sex in Education," says:

"If he had been at the Springfield station Tuesday night, he would have seen a demonstration—could we call it a case of 'demonstrative anatomy'?—of the infirmity of his arguments. Such a lot of ruddy and robust girls as poured out of the northern train on their way from the Mount Holyoke Female Seminary to Thanksgiving keeping at home—not a pale face or fleshless form among them—gave abundant proof of the consistency of hard study and high health. They were only the advanced guard, too; the rest, save a lone 15 who remain at the school, got off Wednesday, and not one of the whole three hundred probably realizes the horrible dangers attending the thirst for knowledge."

Years ago, I know, the rules of Holyoke Seminary made a certain amount of daily exercise in the open air as obligatory upon the student as attention to studies and recitations. No doubt this is still the case, and helps to ​account for the high state of health enjoyed by the girls belonging to this institution.

The Rev. Dr. Hosmer, president of Antioch College, speaking of the students of Antioch, says:

"As to character and conduct, I am sure that our young men have been improved, rendered more orderly, gentle and manly, and our young women stronger and more earnest, by being members of the same institution and meeting in the recitations."

President Angell, of the University of Michigan, bears the following testimony on the question of co-education:

"Those girls who do wish a collegiate education should have a chance to get it; and since our colleges cannot be duplicated for women, they should be admitted, unless some serious practical objections can be shown. In fact, all who try the experiment report that there are none. We have not had the slightest embarrassment from the reception of women. They have done their work admirably, and, apparently, with no peril to their health."

After all but this the concluding chapter of this book had been written, and when I looked ​upon it as completed, I had put into my hands a pamphlet containing an "Address upon the Co-education of the Sexes," by Edward H. Magill, president of Swarthmore College, located at Swarthmore, Delaware co., Pa. This address is an exceedingly able document, and is, in my opinion, of itself a sufficient refutation of all the arguments brought forward in Dr. Clarke's book.

Swarthmore College, which is under the management of the Society of Friends, probably represents more perfect equality in the matter of sex than any other educational institution in the country, if not in the world. Not only are students of both sexes admitted on precisely equal terms, but by the ordering of its constitution one-half its managers must be women, and women are largely represented among its professors and instructors. This college has been so short a time in existence that it can hardly be considered to have given the experiment of co-education a complete trial as yet. But so far the results have been most ​satisfactory. President Magill, speaking of the institution, says:

"It contains over two hundred students of both sexes, nearly equal in numbers. All reside in the same college building; sit together in the classes, in the general study-hall and at the table; are together freely in the halls and parlors and upon certain portions of the grounds between recitation hours and on holidays—of course under the care and conscientious oversight of a large body of resident instructors and professors of both sexes. Of the result thus far (and we have been established four years) I will say in a word that the effect upon character, manners and scholarship has been such as to satisfy the highest hopes of the advocates of the system, and silence the caviling and objections of those who, upon theoretical grounds, predicted an early failure."

Admitting that the experience of his own college has been too limited to give more than immediate results in the matter of the health of the female students, the president quotes other authorities on this point. He cites T. W. Higginson as authority "that statistics do not prove that educated women are more sickly than those who are ignorant; and that more ​girls sink listlessly into disease from the sheer reason of having nothing to do, to study or to think of than are injured by over-study." Mrs. Cheney adds to this:

"I believe that good mental discipline is the very thing most needed to restore the health of our girls. I see so many girls break down from the gayeties of society, and so many restored from ill-health by earnest purposes and study, that I feel it to be a positive truth not only that good study would not hurt women, but would save them."

He quotes President Raymond, of Vassar College, as saying: "I challenge the United States to produce four hundred girls as healthy as those of our college."

President Magill goes on to say:

"Professor Maria Mitchell added her emphatic testimony to that of President Raymond. Most of the ill-health of girls and young women who are pursuing a course of study, and who are generally supposed to be suffering from close confinement and over-exertion, is fairly attributable to other causes. The principal of a leading normal school in New England informed me a few years ago that a promising young woman of his class, who had just died of brain fever, was believed to have died from hard study, whereas he knew that ​she was in the habit of returning from parties at midnight or later; and being ambitious to excel in her classes, she would then study two or three hours before retiring, thus almost wholly depriving herself of sleep; and that other cases, quite similar to this, had fallen under his observation."

No doubt if the clinical cases of Dr. Clarke were properly investigated, some of them would reveal facts similar to this.

Dropping now the question of the physical effect of co-education upon women, I will make a few extracts from this address, showing President Magill's opinions concerning its social and intellectual results. He says:

"Those who have always been accustomed to see young men and young women in separate institutions of learning, and who know how much time and thought they spend upon each other when thus separated, are apt to suppose that this difficulty would be increased if they were educated together. No conclusion could be more fallacious. There is nothing like daily association in the class-room, and competition in study, to wear off the halo of young romance and enable them to see each other as they really are. That they will be likely to form acquaintances which will result in matrimonial engagements after leaving college cannot, of ​course, be denied. Upon this point I quote from the Rev. Dr. Fairchild. He says: 'If this is a fatal objection, the system must be pronounced a failure. The majority of young people form such acquaintances between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four, and these are the years devoted to a course of study. It would be a most unnatural state of things if such acquaintances should not be made. The reasonable inquiry in the case is whether such acquaintances and engagements can be made under circumstances more favorable to a wise and considerate adjustment or more promising of a happy result.'"

The father of a young woman who has spent three years at Swarthmore College writes as follows:

"Her sojourn with you has been of great service to her, and I think it will have a permanent effect in forming her character. Aside from the book-knowledge to be obtained, we wished to accomplish two purposes in sending her from home: first, to throw her more upon her own resources, and thus strengthen a rather yielding character, lacking self-esteem; and second, we wanted her to associate with young men in such a competitive way that when she meets them in society she will be better able to understand, weigh and value them at their real worth, and not be dazed by her first contact with the other sex."

​The president says further:

"That the daily association of young men and young women in the pursuit of their studies has a refining and elevating effect upon both is a matter of common observation with all who have seen the experiment fairly tried. It is generally believed that, while it may produce this favorable result upon young men, it is not so clear in the case of young women, and that what is gained by the one, in this respect, is lost by the other. This is an error in theory which practical experience cannot fail to correct. Upon this point let me quote the words of President White, of the Cornell University. In a recent report upon this subject he says: 'As to the good effect on the women who have actually entered colleges, the testimony is ample. The committee in its visits found no opposing statements, either from college officers, students of either sex or citizens of university towns, and all observations failed to detect any symptoms of any loss of the distinctive womanly qualities so highly prized.'

******

"I need not multiply words nor heap up testimony on the subject. We all understand that brothers and sisters, in every well-regulated family, exercise a mutually refining and elevating effect upon each other, and that it is always a misfortune to either to be deprived of the influence of the other. What is true in ​the family is equally true in the school or college, under proper regulations.

******

"Let all avenues of knowledge be opened to both sexes alike, and let both alike, under a judicious optional system, freely partake of the knowledge which they desire. Fear not the lowering of the standard of literary institutions by the change proposed. The women who will seek admission to the newly-opened institutions of learning will rather stimulate by their presence and example than lower the standard by their deficient scholarship. Professor Cooley, of the law department of the University of Michigan, and chief-justice of the State, says: 'You are misinformed if you are told that the standard of admission is lowered by admitting women to the university. The tendency has been in the other direction.'"

In confirmation of this last fact President Fairchild of Oberlin says:

"During my own experience as professor—eight years in ancient languages, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, eleven in mathematics, abstract and applied, and eight in philosophical and ethical studies—I have never observed any difference in the sexes as to performance in the recitations."

President White in a recent address says:

"The best Greek scholar among 1300 students of the University of Michigan a few years since, the best mathematical scholar in one of the largest classes of that institution to-day, and several among the highest in natural science and in the general courses of study, are young women."

Although this address was probably published before the appearance of Dr. Clarke's "Sex in Education," President Magill might have had that author in his mind when he penned the following paragraph:

"The theoretical objections to co-education in our higher institutions of learning are daily giving way before the test of practical experience. The most decided opponents of the system are those who have never tried it or seen it tried; its strongest advocates those who, having witnessed the effects of the separate system, have brought co-education to the test of daily practice. This fact alone speaks volumes in its favor. The tide is surely advancing, and not ebbing, as some of our leading educators would have us believe."

It is with reluctance that I omit any part of this excellent address, but it is too long to copy entire. Its concluding paragraph, however, shall have a place here:

"In conclusion, let me say that this question seems to assume different forms in different parts of the world. Were we discussing it to-day in some city of the Orient instead of in Philadelphia, it would probably be worded: 'Can women be allowed to go unveiled in the streets, or sit at the table with their lords, without endangering the public morals?' Were we in Paris, it might be: 'Can respectable young women ever appear unattended in the public streets?' In Palestrina or Lugnano or Subiaco, it might take the form: 'Are women capable of any office higher than that of beasts of burden?' In Philadelphia, we ask: 'Can young men and young women be safely educated together in the same institution?' and 'Are women capable of making the same intellectual acquirements as men?' These different questions are but different forms of the same question, varying according to different localities and different latitudes. The time will come when our posterity will read with amazement and incredulity the statement that in the city of Philadelphia, after the middle of the nineteenth century, the question was seriously entertained by a dignified and intelligent body of educators, in advance of their age in many things, whether women were intellectually equal to men, and whether the sexes should be educated together in our higher institutions of learning."

​Now, what has Dr. Clarke got to advance to counterbalance all this testimony? Nothing; except the evidence of the faculties of Harvard and Yale and other masculine colleges, who maintain, out of the profound depths of their want of experience in the matter, that they have found co-education entirely impracticable and undesirable, that bringing young men and young women together results adversely to their morals, "lowers the standard of admission to universities," retards the progress of the male students and works physical deterioration to the female students. Dr. Clarke is forced to admit the groundlessness of all these arguments except the last. He takes his stand upon this question of female physical deterioration, and thinks if he can maintain his position here, he can allow the others to go by default. So, in proof, he brings clinical cases of girls who became invalids or died from over-study perhaps, and no doubt from various other pernicious habits. He then proceeds to demonstrate, from the results of a system of female education differing as widely as possible from identical and ​co-education of the sexes, that the latter is detrimental to the health of women!

If the modes of education which our young women now pursue are working such havoc among them, let us by all means have a radical change, and try the identical and co-educational plan, which, as we know on the testimony of numberless competent persons who have been engaged in experimenting with it, is productive of no such disastrous results.

We have tried "Sex in Education" ever since the world began; and according to Dr. Clarke's own showing, each successive generation of women is inferior to its predecessor. Let us now adopt a system which recognizes no sex in education and gives to boys and girls an equal chance, and see if the results will not prove advantageous to both.