Analysis of
letters
(1960-2013)

As Washington and Lee began considering going co-ed in the 1980s, students, alumni and board members had strong views about whether the decision was right and wrong and what it would entail for the institution. Some of them expressed their views in letters to the administration, in an effort to have their voice heard. For this project I collected a little over 30 letters and correspondences from the years 1983-1985 surrounding the issue of coeducation and analyzed the language within them in order to observe potential patterns in the discussion of women, especially in the shadow of men and their long-standing presence in the university. According to the explicit sentiments in the letters (or lack thereof), I divided them into "pro", "contra", and "ambivalent" when it comes to whether they were written in support of coeducation, so that I could examine the differences between the patterns of language used to refer to women depending on the writer's disposition.

On the graph below we can see the relative frequencies of each gendered noun used to refer to women across the corpus, for each group of letters: "pro", "contra", and "ambivalent." The word "lady" was not used a single time in the letters, which is why it has been taken out.

We can, however, see an interesting pattern among the use of the other words. The difference in the use of the word "women" is the most stark: it has been used most frequently in the "pro" letters, or the ones which explicitly express support for coeducation. The word "woman" has also been used more in the "pro" letters than the rest. This is interesting as "woman" is considered the most neutral and most validating way to refer to women. The "contra" letters, in comparison, have utilized the words "girl" and "girls" to refer to women, whereas the "pro" and "ambivalent" letters haven't used those words at all. This suggests that the writers of the "contra" letters probably endorse images of women “consistent with stereotypic domains of high warmth and low dominance” (Cralley and Ruscher, 2005) and have exhibited sexist inclinations in their reasoning against coeducation. This can be further substantiated if we take a closer look at the content of the letters. The visualization below explores the usage of the word "girls" in context, meaning what words and phrases surround it within the "contra" letters. We can see phrases like "how do these girls adapt to the predominantly male..." and "...understand the situation, but letting girls in wouldn't help this...", and we can infer the additional context that surrounds them. We can also feel the notes of sexism and the diminishing, dismissive attitudes those excerpts convey.

To better understand the attitudes of the writers of the letters, we can look even closer. Below you can see snippets from two "contra" letters, in which alumni William D. Hoyt '32 and Everett Tucker, Jr. '34 express their views against women being welcomed at Washington and Lee. Hoyt describes his experience visiting the Princeton campus at the time it went co-ed, stating his impression that "the girls were there in good part to hitch on to some male" and showing blatant disregard for women and their autonomy. Tucker Jr. also expresses his opposition to having women join the student body and "converge on the fraternity houses." Yet, nowadays, that is something a lot of fraternity members seem to enjoy as they actively invite sororities to their parties. Quite paradoxically, Tucker Jr. then suggests that fraternities go back to having house mothers, as this "provided a more home-like atmopsphere," subjecting women to the stereotypical gender roles they have assumed throughout time. Both Hoyt and Tucker Jr. use "girls" to refer to women.

"Women" is overall the most commonly used word in the letters, with a relative frequency of around 0.0035 for the "contra" letters and 0.0055 for the "pro" letters. Similarly to the one above, the two visualizations below explore the usage of the word "women" in context, within the "contra" and the "pro" letters separately. While this helps us see that not all "contra" letters use exclusively diminishing words to refer to women, the way the two types of letters use the word "women" differs. The "contra" letters seem to be using the word "women" to make a case for why women being accepted in the university might damage or "put in jeopardy" aspects of the institution. Thus, there is nothing in the usage of the word that actually speaks to women for who they are, but rather what they could do to disrupt the status quo.

In contrast, the "pro" letters use the word "women" with an entirely different purpose. The context in which the word is used speaks to the many social, economic, intellectual, and other contributions women have made to society, and how that means the university can no longer ignore the need for them to be integrated within the student body. The "pro" letters suggest that there is inherent value in women in and of themselves, rather than they would be taking value away from the university.

Below we can see a snippet of a "pro" letter from Skip Nottberg to then-Alumni Board President Peter Agelasto, III, in which Nottberg expresses his views in support of women being admitted to Washington and Lee. He states that "women have become an important part of our careers, whether it is in law, medicine, advertising, journalism, or construction" and therefore "women must be a part of W&L's existence." This is a sentiment commonly shared across the "pro" letters and serves to show that supporters of coeducation were way more focused on women's overall contributions and fight to be equal members of a changing world, rather than just pointing out how they would contribute to changing the homogenous "world" of Washington and Lee.

Conclusion

The main takeaway from the letters is that both the word "woman" and "women" have been used most frequently in the "pro" letters, or the ones which explicitly support coeducation. The "contra" letters, in comparison, have utilized the words "girl" and "girls" to refer to women, whereas the "pro" and "ambivalent" letters haven't used those words at all. Further, there are two main ways people thought (and talked) about women based on whether or not they supported coeducation:

• People in support of coeducation saw beyond what women could do to the university and considered their social, economic, intellectual, and other contributions to society; they suggested there is inherent value in women in and of themselves, rather than focusing on them taking value away from the university.
• People against coeducation seemed to be using the word "women" to make a case for why women being accepted in the university might damage or "put in jeopardy" aspects of the institution. Thus, there is nothing in the usage of the word that actually speaks to women for who they are, but rather what they could do to disrupt the status quo.