The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

October 4, 2000

The State of Women's Studies

Wednesday, October 4, at 1 p.m. U.S. Eastern time

Is women's studies gaining more acceptance or being rejected in academe? Are scholars in women's studies still trying to either grandly create a better world or wallow in victimhood?

This is a transcript of a live discussion on Wednesday, October 4.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Karen Winkler (Moderator):
Hello, I'm Karen Winkler, an editor with The Chronicle Review, and I'd like to welcome you to The Chronicle's online discussion with Daphne Patai, a professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Today we will be talking about women's studies.

Daphne Patai is the author of such books as Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's studies, written with Noretta Koertge, and Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. She recently wrote an opinion piece for The Chronicle Review, on three new books about the history of women's studies, in which she argued that struggles within the field have been "not so much against grudging outsiders as among women for whom the overriding bone of contention has often been the question: What sort of feminists are we?"

For the next hour, we invite you to submit questions and comments about her argument and the history, present, and future of women's studies.

Daphne, thank you for joining us.

Daphne Patai:
I'm extremely pleased to have this opportunity to engage in this debate over very important issues. It's an unusual opportunity, in my experience for in fact one of my fundamental criticisms of women's studies is that it has not been open to discussion with critics but has instead too often maligned their motives which makes it impossible for substantive debate to take place.

Question from Ara Wilson, OSU:
Is there any reason to apply these questions to women's studies in particular, and not to, for example, humanities work, or equally vulnerable configurations such as area studies, or most liberal-arts fields at this time?

Daphne Patai:
This is, of course, the age-old problem: How much of a given phenomenon is specific to one area of academe?

My own feeling is that all programs and departments have problems, but they do not all have the same problems, and those problems do not always affect teaching in vital ways.

To use your terminology, I believe the "vulnerability" is greatest in the most overtly politicized programs, for obvious reasons. My Spanish and Portuguese department does not have a mission statement that involves political transformation. Most women's-studies programs do. Women's Studies is feminism, by definition, in most programs/departments, and feminism is a political program. (Have a look at the National Women's Studies Association's mission statement. It makes absolutely clear that Women's Studies is providing "feminist/womanist" education in the service of a political mission -- to free the world of a variety of -isms.)

It's true, however, that, in recent years, confusion about the role of the university has increased. In that sense, yes, I think there are other programs and departments, even whole institutions, that seem to have abandoned education for the sake of some more immediate political/ideological goal. To my mind, this is a dangerous step, as the history of the twentieth century makes abundantly clear.

Karen Winkler (Moderator):
We've received numerous questions on that last point about politics in the disciplines. Let's go on with another one.

Question from Claire Kaplan, University of Virginia:
My preliminary dissertation research on the experiences of women's-studies majors, both during their program and after graduation, indicates that this particular area of study leaves students feeling personally empowered and intellectually flexible. The students (present and alumni) I have met so far also feel committed to creating that illusive "better world" for women, and often choose careers that will enable them to do just that.

My question(s): Are not all academic programs ideologically based? Do not all academic programs suffer from internal wrangling and political conflict? Do not leading scholars in most academic disciplines create the expectation that students will learn to "toe the line" in order to be considered serious scholars in the field? Is not the increasing legitimacy of Women's Studies in academe a direct consequence of serious scholarship in the field?

Daphne Patai:
Once again, many fields of study in the humanities and social sciences attempt to expose students to a variety of perspectives without imposing a particular one. Individual teachers may passionately try to convince their students of their own points of view, but few programs as a whole have such an agenda. Women's studies (like some other identity programs) does, quite explicitly.

The idea that leading scholars are forcing their graduate students to toe a particular line is more parody than reality -- and wherever it does happen, it's unfortunate and should be resisted. However, this sounds like a very peculiar defense of women's studies. "We force our students to toe the line, but so does everyone else" is hardly a recipe for change or improvement.

There is enormous variety and vigor in the world of scholarship, as well as heated debate. That is all to the good. Women's-studies people always point to the many kinds of "feminismS" that exist and to the many debates within the field. That doesn't change the fact that, as far as the feminist classroom is concerned, there are characteristic feminist approaches and axioms.

The legitimacy that women's studies has as a field is due to two things:

its role in a great and general transformation of American society, and
the excellent work of individual scholars.

However, only a small part of this work gets into the classroom, and that part is often distorted and shows up in classrooms as a feminist bottom-line version mouthed by "multidisciplinary" teachers who may have little expertise -- but strong passions -- about the "issues" they teach.

Question from Jim Steiger, University of British Columbia:
For quite some time, I've been a member of WMST-L, which is a moderated list. A number of my attempted posts have been censored on ideological grounds, often with a comment that they are too inflammatory. On the other hand, I've seen numerous posters on the list (all with remarkably similar views) declare that you are wrong, and that feminism is open and receptive to intellectual challenges. I see this as wonderfully ironic. Care to comment?

Daphne Patai:
As a long-time subscriber to the WMST-list, from which I have learned much, I have to say that increasingly I, too, have both observed and experienced the sort of thing you're describing. Yes, the irony is not lost on me that people furious at my criticism that women's studies is intolerant engage in personal attacks and assert that I have malicious and venal motives. And I'm aware that postings such as yours (and some of mine) get rejected as too "inflammatory," while very immoderate attacks on certain people and subjects are allowed. I regularly get private messages from people who agree with what I've written on the WMST-list, but are hesitant to publicly voice their criticisms. The list, however, is not my first or only experience with attempts at censorship done in the name of feminism. Still, the list is immensely useful, and, as an important record of women's studies in the 1990s and on; the list and its archives would make for a fabulous research project, that's certain.

Question from Rob, Big Ten University:
Since I teach history of science classes, I am very aware of how difficult it is to discuss controversies about evolution and creationism in a manner that is respectful of both valid argumentation and strongly held religious beliefs.

How is the controvery over abortion handled in women's-studies classrooms? Can one be a feminist and yet have reservations about current law regarding abortion? Maybe even more basic, can one teach women's studies and not be a feminist?

Daphne Patai:
I have not met, in women's-studies circles, a single professor who was anti-choice, with one notable exception. This would not matter if faculty in women's studies didn't also embrace a personal pedagogy that makes cool discussion of difficult issues, presenting all sides, highly unlikely and even to be avoided. In my experience, little effort has been made to understand - rather than demonize - women who oppose abortion. But it's not only abortion; I know feminist faculty who refuse to teach the "other" side of the pornography issue (the free-speech side), claiming it gets enough attention elsewhere. The problem you bring up is a deep and serious one -- and not restricted to women's studies. But the uniformity -- if not conformity -- within women's studies makes it more likely to be found there.

For many feminists, abortion does seem to be the litmus test (or one of them). I have no objection to individual feminists holding such a belief with tenacity; my concerns are with what this means in and for the classroom.

As to who can teach women's studies, it was created to be the "academic arm of the women's movement," and this phrase is still repeated again and again in the mission statements of various programs. I don't believe it's appropriate for a secular university to have a program committed to a particular ideology. To the extent that women's studies is feminism, it is, in my view, academically illegitimate. The study of women, our history, gender roles, etc., on the other hand, are all entirely legitimate and important subjects. One can be a feminist, as I am, and not a supporter of women's studies or of feminist activism in education.

Question from Norma Dawkins, Valdosta State University:
Just how long has it been since you left the field?

Daphne Patai:
I wouldn't say I've ever "left the field." I did leave the women's-studies program at the University of Masschusetts at Amherst in about 1995 -- that is, my position, which for the preceding decade had been half in the women's-studies program and half in the Spanish and Portuguese department, was moved back fully into Spanish & Portuguese, at my request.

Question from Viki Soady, Valdosta State University:
Hi, Daphne! Could you discuss the impact of your location in the privileged hub of Northeastern universities on the generalizations that you make about women's studies? I teach in a Southern rural community where women think that domestic abuse is a manifestation of God's plan!

Daphne Patai:
Hello Viki. I am aware that particular programs face particular problems, and these may well have something to do with their local culture -- but not necessarily. Many universities in, for example, conservative cities nonetheless have very "politically correct" departments and faculty. While one should be careful about generalizations, my research for my book on women's studies and my experience since then suggest to me that your concern does not adequately respond to my-and others'-characterizations of the problems generally found in women's studies.

I have a question, in turn, for you: Even if it's true that, as you say, women students in southern Georgia think domestic abuse is a manifestation of God's plan, should an academic program really be devoted directly to changing their minds? Perhaps educating them broadly -- rather than discussing "issues" such as violence, pornography, sexuality, etc. (the staple of general women's-studies courses) -- would do more for their ability to think independently and reconsider their place in the world and the possibilities it offers.

Question from Ramdas Lamb, University of Hawai'i:
Why do you think academic institutions condone, and even promote, women's studies departments that have almost totally replaced critical thinking with ideological indoctrination?

Daphne Patai:
That's a fascinating question. On the best possible reading I think that there was a need for transformation in academe that gave significant space for women. As I said in the article, however, I see this transformation as having been part of a general immense process of social change that the country, and indeed not only this country, was going through. The point that Ramdas makes, I think has to do with the lack of criticism from university administrators of what was going on in women's-studies programs, even when it became clear that this was a very different kind of "education" than is usually considered appropriate in an academic setting in modern times.

Part of the answer, I think, relates to something which really is a great privilege of American education, and that is the enormous degree of autonomy of professors and departments. And this I fully support. The downside, however, is that there are few mechanisms, if any, in place for dealing with even eggregious instances of classrooms used for indoctrination rather than education.

The other part of the answer is that many academics seem to be afraid, to criticize identity programs. The reason for their fear, I think, is that it is indeed extremely unpleasant to be called racist, sexist, etc. by one's colleagues. Still there remains the underlying question, of why academic conformity seems to be so prevalent? And that is an important matter, but one that I cannot go into right now in further detail.

Question from Susan Kane, Univeristy of Washington (librarian):
I was a student in American Studies at the University of Michigan in the early 1990's, where I saw evidence of "orthodoxies" within Women studies - and in other disciplines. I evaluated each with a critical eye and believed only what made sense to me. Why do you assume that undergraduates are stupid? Your attacks against the discpline have been raised many times and answered by many voices. I suggest that you either sit down at the table or leave the room. Standing in the doorway throwing spit balls is hardly useful.

Daphne Patai:
That's a fairly typical reaction posed as a question when one makes criticisms. My criticisms may have been made many times by myself and others but that doesn't mean that they have in fact been addressed or acknowledged by what I'm going to call "proper feminists" as opposed to feminist -- and other -- critics of feminism. I certainly hope that our undergraduates are very capable of thinking critically about what goes on in their classrooms. In women's-studies classrooms that have the orthodox character to which I am protesting there is usually not an atmosphere that encourages criticism of the reigning orthodoxies. Many of us who have taught women's studies, have seen discussions curtailed or even shut down because some highly vocal students, often with the support of professors, were not willing to entertain certain questions and certain criticisms.

A point that I repeatedly make in relation to institutionalized feminism, which is what women's studies is, is that it creates a very different environment for everyone involved in it than the kind of individually biased, let's say, class that Susan, the questioner, was describing, which she felt very well able to see through.

Question from Heather S. Kleiner, University of Georgia (ret.):
I am dismayed that The Chronicle has once again allowed a professional critic of women's studies to establish the framework and set the tone for discussion of the emerging field. Your editorial bias is clear in the very question you pose above: "Are scholars in women's studies still trying to either grandly create a better world or wallow in victimhood?" Surely, there are other possibilities. The women's studies scholars I was associated with for over twelve years were engaged in the same activities as all good academics: analyzing and critiquing the "givens" of their respective fields and of society, guiding students to awareness, understanding and action. Additionally, they were introducing women's accomplishments and viewpoints into the curriculum.

My question for you is, when will you feature an article and discussion on Women's Studies by someone like Catharine Stimpson or Marilyn Boxer? Patai, Sommers and Paglia have had their say, too many times.

Karen Winkler:
This seems like a question for The Chronicle. In answer to that type of question posted recently on the women's studies discussion list, Scott Jaschik, the editor of The Chronicle, posted the following:

In general, the concerns seem to be that The Chronicle -- through its online discussion or the essay it published -- is giving Daphne Patai too much legitimacy and that we must be endorsing her views by holding this Web discussion or publishing her essay, or that we must have some campaign against women's studies. The implication made in several e-mails that we have some sort of ideological agenda in our Web chats is unfair. We haven't been doing these online discussions for very long, but they have included a variety of political perspectives(from Robert Reich to Ward Connerly); a number of disciplines (just last week we featured a discussion on an ethics scandal in anthropology, and an earlier chat on black studies featured Manning Marable and Leith Mullings); and a number of women (the head of the American Association of University Professors on faculty unionization, and the provost of Dartmouth College, talking about career paths for female administrators). Our opinion pages are also not dominated by any one perspective of women's studies, or of any discipline. We publish Linda Kerber, Elaine Showalter, Sherrie Tucker, Mari Jo Buhle, Leslie Heywood, Nancy Hopkins, Ruth Rosen, Mary Beth Norton -- and yes, Daphne Patai and Camille Paglia and others whose views may offend some of you. In our news pages, our coverage of women's studies is also diverse. We strive to give our readers a sense of the range of ideas in academe -- knowing that our readers will embrace some of those ideas and reject others. But it would wrong for us to exclude Daphne Patai from our coverage just because some scholars disagree with her. (And it bothers me just as much when critics of women's studies on the right suggest that we shouldn't publish pieces or cover women's studies scholars who are among those Ms. Patai criticizes.) To close, I'd love to hear from people with ideas for articles that The Chronicle should do on women's studies or anything in academe. I'd also be happy to forward to our opinion staff any names of members of this list who would like to write essays for us on women's studies or any topic of interest to academics. We want as many voices and ideas as possible represented in our pages.

Scott Jaschik
Editor
The Chronicle of Higher Education
scott.jaschik@chronicle.com

Question from Lisa Jadwin, St. John Fisher College:
The binary way in which your topic is framed is highly biased. Scholars in gender studies may simply be trying to bring the study of gender into systematic focus, and to ensure that the contributions of women to human history are acknowledged and studied with the same consistency as the contributions of men. Care to comment?

Daphne Patai:
I definitely care to comment about this question. Women's studies is not merely about including "women's contributions." That aim -- a perfectly valid and very important one -- can be done in the context of many courses and indeed is being done by many educators. Women's studies is quite explicitly feminism in action in an academic setting. Many courses in women's studies, especially the lower-level introduction to women's studies sorts of courses (which, by the way, fulfill general-education requirements in many universities), are issues oriented. They are far too often talking not about women's contributions but about women's victimization. Thus, they typically have a roster of issues such as violence against women, pornography, abortion, homophobia, white privilege, and so on that the class goes through one by one. These issues typically are not presented as problems to be studied from many points of view but rather as problems to be exposed by feminist ideology. The bottom line to me is that far too often women's-studies classrooms convey attitudes to be endorsed by the students rather than substantive knowledge.

Question from Jane Elza, Valdosta State University:
Is there any place doing it right? Isn't it possible to teach women's studies without going to extremes? Imagine the world without women's studies -- would it be better off?

Daphne Patai:
I don't know of any schools where "it" is just right, but do not deny there may be some. What I do know is that whenever I've spoken at universities on these topics, women's-studies people in the audience angrily declare that "none of this happens at our school," but others come up after my talk (and some few state this publicly) to tell me that many of the problems I've been describing occur in their departments and in their courses. Result: I used to be more optimistic than I am now.

Still, I think it's possible to get it right -- in individual classrooms, where individual teachers are committed to education and not to replicating in their students their own attitudes and trajectory. The question, of course, is what happens to those teachers in the institutional framework of women's studies. And there the news isn't so great. What you call not going to extremes, many women's studies faculty would call caving in to discredited liberal ideas. An entire analysis of the world and of education -- a very flawed analysis -- underlies women's studies, and is used in defense of its orthodoxies and "extremes."

Would the world have been better off without women's studies? Perhaps not. But I don't think women's studies had to embrace political orthodoxies. And I don't think you can have -- as is sometimes the case -- the same person act as both director of women's studies and as head of the sexual harassment committee without creating a judicial horror. Is the world a better place because of such examples of the feminist influence in academe? Not to my mind. The positive effects of decades of social change won't disappear if these kinds of women's-studies programs disappear; some of the ideological heavy-handedness might -- though that will continue to depend on what individual professors choose to do.

Karen Winkler (Moderator):
We're about halfway through our discussion. If you have any questions and comments, please send them along now.

Question from RKB, research university:
We all know that the relations between the sexes/genders have often/always been troubled and exploitive. My question is simply this: Is Women's Studies part of the solution to this problem or is it now part of the problem?

Daphne Patai:
Another interesting question. I no longer think women's studies even aspires to be part of the solution. There is in women's studies so much of what I call "heterophobia" that improving relations between the sexes is hardly an aim, if it ever was. Many women's-studies courses utilize texts that are explicitly hostile to heterosexuality. I've written about this elsewhere and have cited chapter and verse. I don't want to repeat myself here.

What perhaps is important about this issue is that it is, no doubt, one reason why many young women stay away from women's-studies courses. This is not "bad press" or "backlash," as women's-studies faculty like to claim, but a pretty accurate assessment of what students are likely to be exposed to. This isn't the only instance in which in claiming to right one wrong -- in this case homophobia -- women's studies has merely gone to the opposite extreme. A related aspect of this question is the inhospitable attitudes toward male students that exists in many women's-studies classrooms.

Question from Dr. Diana Blaine, University of Southern California:
You argue that Women's Studies courses reflect a unified political agenda. Given the inevitably political nature of deciding what ideas to disseminate, how would you describe the political agenda of non-women's studies courses? And why are you more comfortable with the propagation of these unacknowledged agendas than you are with the ideas overtly being articulated in women's-studies courses?

Daphne Patai:
You presuppose "unacknowledged political agendas" in all programs. I take it, then, that you agree that women's studies has a distinct political agenda. You also use the language of "comfort" to describe my position. I tend to disagree with this way of framing the issue. What is the political agenda in deciding to disseminate the Periodic Table? There have been excellent discussions of the meaning of "social construction of knowledge" in relation to the sciences -- far different from what students typically get in a women's studies course, but I won't get into that here.

I cannot describe 'the agenda" of non-women's-studies courses because, unlike your way of framing the issue, I do not believe there is one such thing, and I don't even believe there are many such things. There may be individual teachers introducing their agendas, but that is not the same thing as a women's-studies agenda.

The big issue to me is how much politics are we going to deliberately allow into our educational system at this moment in the evolution of our universities, for what purposes, and designed by whom. As long as a thousand flowers bloom, all the political biases can fight it out among themselves. That's far from a Cultural Revolution, a la Mao, which is what I think needs to be avoided at all costs.

I have repeatedly argued that without the existence of a real commitment to liberal education, women's studies wouldn't have gotten a foot in the door. It's not the first movement, of course, to use a principle as long as it needed it, and then attack it. Since women's studies' other main raison d'etre is its avowed claim that it is making the world a better place, I also reject the line of defense you offer. It would be problematic even if I agreed with your premises.

Question from Phyllis Baker, University of Northern Iowa:
I would like to know the status of graduate programs in women's studies. I direct a master's program, and we have falling enrollment. Information about nationwide trends would help us to understand if our enrollment is due to something we are doing or to larger variables like the increase in numbers of programs. What is your sense of the trends? Thanks!

Daphne Patai:
The best place for continually updated data regarding Women's Studies programs is the National Women's Studies Association, whose website is:

http://www.nwsa.org/about.htm

I believe that the number of women's-studies graduate programs is increasing. I am not surprised, however, that you have falling enrollments. The increase in the number of programs is no doubt a response to political pressures, often by the local-women's studies faculty. Whether there is really a demand for such programs on the part of students, and what size that demand is, I do not know.

Question from Wanda Warren Berry, Colgate University:
How are we supposed to take seriously a colloquy with Daphne Patai about feminism when she gives such an uncritical review of Joan Mandle's book? Authentic feminists and women's studies faculty should be careful and responsible whenever they do research, especially about women. Did Daphne Patai realize that Joan Mandle's book can easily be shown to be a negligent misrepresentation of Colgate's Women's Studies Program and of a number of the college's women administrators and faculty? What kind of feminism do Mandle and Patai represent? They seem to be more concerned to gain publicity than tell the truth. Mandle's account of being replaced as the Director of Women's Studies at Colgate dishonestly misrepresents that situation. In addition, Colgate's archives can easily demonstrate that Mandle's book is full of factual errors.

I will be glad to document my claims by forwarding the Open Letter about this book that I sent to Colgate's President this summer to anyone who sends me an e-mail address. (wberry@colgate.edu)

Daphne Patai:
The debate about the particulars of Mandle's book will have to be settled by the people involved by reference to the documents. What's more interesting to me is the tone of this question, which is the usual one of personal attack directed at critics of women's studies. Joan Mandle's book is not a personal attack. It is a description of her experiences and an attempt to analyze the commitments and ideologies that underlay conflict over women's studies at Colgate. As I mentioned in my review, Nona Glazer, who co-founded the women's studies program at Portland State University, had criticisms of women's studies very similar to Mandle's and to mine. It is simply not the case that critics of practices that are common, in many respects even characteristic, of women's studies are making these things up out of viciousness or a desire to increase their fame and fortune.

Question from Elena Gapova, European Humanities U, Minsk Belarus:
Do university administrations sometimes agree to introduce women's studies as a concession to political correctness policy, while not really believing in their scholarly value? Departments can formally exist and multiply, while their role is not influential. Is there this kind of "backlash"?

Daphne Patai:
Yes, they do, but I don't understand why you call this a "backlash."

Question from Carla, university in the midwest:
Is the present situation just the result of the historical circumstances in which Women's Studies was born? Will the field intellectually mature as time passes? Are things getting better? Or is it going to require active interventions on the parts of deans, parents, alums?

Daphne Patai:
That's a tough one. I hope things will "mature" on their own, but doubt it because of the institutionalization of an essentially political movement. The sense in which I think things can get better has to do not with women's studies as programs but with the work of individual scholars and teachers who maintain high standards -- instead of attacking the very notion of "standards" as is sometimes done in women's studies and other identity programs. I've already addressed in an earlier question the importance of academic freedom and autonomy in American universities. Given that value, I'm not sure what kinds of administrative actions would be appropriate. There needs to be a broad discussion of this issue.

Question from Kristin Rusch, University of Maryland:
Regarding your response to Lisa: isn't a specifically feminist viewpoint (and variations thereof) a legit perspective to study on the issues you mentioned? Certainly Marxists have something important to say about these issues, as do Freudians, theologians, and others. What's wrong with looking at feminist views on these issues?

Daphne Patai:
A wonderful question because it allows me to clarify something really important. There's a big difference between an individual professor bringing her belief and convictions to the classroom -- whether those are Marxist, Freudian, fundamentalist, or whatever -- and the existence of programs devoted to the promotion of a particular ideology. With women's studies we have the latter. An example that seems to me appropriate is do we want to have in secular universities a fundamentalist-studies program that endorses rather than merely studies religious fundamentalism?

Question from Diana York Blaine, U. of Southern California:
Doesn't the teaching of the periodic table imply that "man's" appropriate relationship with "nature" is one of dominance? And that we should search for the meaning of existence through science? Since when are such humanist assertions free from political implications?

Daphne Patai:
I'm confused by the reference to the periodic table as a "humanist assertion." Not to get too hung up on the example of the periodic table, but Diana seems to be saying that we can't teach about the principles of solid bridge construction without getting into questions of who builds bridges, men or women? whether or not they should at all be built? and so on. Their are appropriate fora, no doubt, for dealing with such questions, but I don't think they should be the main focus of an engineering program or a chemistry program.

Karen Winkler (Moderator):
We're almost done with the hour. We can take about two more submissions.

Question from Adrienne McCormick, SUNY Fredonia:
Hi Daphne, In my teaching experience, I have always taught the pro-sex and anti-porn positions on pornography; I have students preparing a presentation right now on abortion that will take into account women who are pro-choice and pro-life; I have men in my classes and encourage them to take more courses. These approaches to key women's studies issues are mirrored in many of my colleagues' classrooms in women's studies as well. How do you respond to the critique that you're misrepresenting women's studies scholars and classrooms (particularly in reference to these issues) by imposing a homogeneity upon them that does not exist?

Daphne Patai:
It's interesting to me that to make criticisms gets one cast as imposing "homogeneity." Let us suppose that Adrienne is perfectly accurate in her description of her own teaching and of colleagues. That in no way contradicts my claim and that of other critics that there are serious problems of ideological browbeating and indoctrination passing as teaching going on in women's-studies classrooms. This is an old question. What percentage of programs and classes have to reveal problems before women's-studies faculty take these problems seriously and address them instead of saying as I have been repeatedly told, "It doesn't happen here"? My experience is that even at schools where the women's-studies people are making this claim the problems do indeed exist, as I hear behind the scenes from students and other faculty at these institutions and as is even confirmed by the fact that some of these institutions, which claim there are no such problems in women's studies, that at some of these institutions women's studies people have actually attempted to have rescinded invitations that I have gotten from other groups to speak there. This hardly shows the openmindedness and tolerance and nondoctrinaire attitudes that these same feminists characteristically claim. But this is no surprise. We need to remember that women's studies was founded as "the academic arm of the women's movement." In other words, it is explicitly and overtly a political program.

Question from Janet Marquardt, Eastern Illinois University:
When I began teaching a women's studies course, I felt that my field would catch up and include women in the "canon" within five years and the course would then no longer be necesssary. It has been 15 years. Students are still exploring completely unknown territory in my classes. Comment?

Daphne Patai:
I wish Janet had said what her field is. If I knew which field she was referring to I might have a better grasp on what explains this. In a very large number of fields, above all in the humanities and social sciences, major transformations have occurred in the curriculum, and this is reflected in courses throughout the university. As far as students exploring unknown territory, I can't tell what she's teaching or what territory she's talking about, but I have heard from various teachers of women's studies that they are dismayed by their colleagues expectations that they should be making their women students aware of how oppressed and victimized they are in our society. Indeed, young women are entering classes, including women's-studies classes, convinced that they are equal to men. If this is the kind of lack of change of perspective that Janet is referring to, I can only say I'm glad to hear it.

Question from Lisa Huebner, The Union Institute:
Briefly, what is your vision for women's studies?

Daphne Patai:
Women's studies probably should aim to make itself obsolete and that for two reasons. One is that to the extent that it had a legitimate mission of transforming the university so that women would no longer be subordinate in an intellectual and empirical sense, the success of its mission could be gauged by its own obsolescence. The second point is that, to the extent that women's studies is a political program, its success in raising issues would mean that its concerns have become part of a general dialogue within the society as a whole and its political vision should simply enter the rich and varied political debates of our time which occur in the public sphere. It is not appropriate to have specific academic programs devoted to some particular political views and not others. My hope then for women's studies is that the best of what it has achieved would be spread throughout the university and the society at large and that the worst of what it has achieved, its substitution of indoctrination for education, its ideological heavyhandedness, its insistence on "support" and "comfort" as what women need in academe -- that all of these things would come to be recognized as aspects of a debased education and can be left behind.

Karen Winkler (Moderator):
I'm sorry that we can't take all of your questions, but we're out of time.

I'd like to thank Daphne Patai and all the participants today for a stimulating discussion. A transcript will be available shortly on the Colloquy Live page.

Daphne Patai:
Closing comments: I've been writing about this subject for about seven years. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to engage in such a dialogue. And the reason quite clearly is because women's studies people, with rare exceptions, avoid any such discussion and prefer to simply dismiss and demonize those who dare to make criticisms of them. So my deep gratitude to The Chronicle for making this possible. Thank you.