I appreciate the posting of the entire Vision 2000 document and Leo's and Patai's criticisms.

Vision 2000 seems to me an academic document in the liberal tradition of, to quote Patai, "tolerance and intellectual openness." It lays out problems and proposes solutions. The proposals are consistent with principles and practices in universities and other agencies. Daphne's response to Vision, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education 1/23/98, segues from rejection of it to a general attack on Women's Studies. This is an open letter to Daphne.

Daphne, my reply to your article comes in the spirit of the intellectual openness you apparently prize. In that spirit, I believe you ought to respond. I welcome others who wish to join the discussion, whatever their perspective.

I'll start with your attack on WS. You say classes are conducted as therapy sessions. What do you mean by 'therapy'? Your definition need not be technical, in terms I would expect from one of my clinical colleagues in psychology. But therapy has specific meanings. Which do you have in mind? I should tell you that in the more than a decade of direct involvement in WS, visiting classes, discussion with WS students and faculty, reading research and so on, I have never encountered anything like a 'therapy' class. You also claim WS faculty champion qualitative over quantitative research methods. But those methodologies (which you probably meant, rather than the narrower term, 'methods') have been championed for nearly 100 years, long before WS was conceptualized, for a variety of reasons. Why do you object to anyone deeming those methodologies more congenial to women than quantitative? If you do, I think you have an intellectual obligation to explain either why the methodologies are not as represented in Visions. Actually, in literature on research published by WS faculty, and in feminists' research reports themselves both qualitative and quantitative approaches are found. Your attack on WS for 'policing insensitive language' should also be explained. What constitutes 'policing'? Pointing out language that deprecates people and suggesting alternatives? Surely you must be aware that efforts in this direction are widespread. There have been objections to referring to a woman as a 'cunt' as there have been objections to calling African Americans 'coons', Italians 'wops', Jews 'kikes' or using the phrase 'Jew you down' and other putdowns of people's identity. People now have 'Downs syndrome' instead of being 'Mongolian idiots'. Textbooks no longer refer to 'yellow hordes' coming to the US when they discuss immigration, etc. You begin your article warning New England universities of an impending 'coup' and follow it up with your opinion that Vision is a 'stunningly imperialist move to put in place a questionable feminist agenda'. But nowhere in Visions is there anything like takeover. Where evaluations are proposed, they are obviously to be done by the same sorts of people who usually do them; e.g., peer review and supervisors are mentioned.

At one point, Visions does suggest that Women's Centers be consulted in senior institutional leaders' efforts to 'encourage, support and maintain new roles for women'. Hardly a coup. Reliance on consultations with people who have special expertise in a field are common all over. Why is this Vision recommendation a problem for you? But your larger objection is to the establishment of Women's Centers - and you give no reasons. Why do you oppose them?

On consultation, I was disappointed that Visions didn't ask for Women's Studies faculty to be involved in the proposed dept. seminars on gender inclusion. Scholars with expertise in a topic should be made available to colleagues. You may be interested to know that when I was a Fulbright Women's Studies Scholar in India in 1994-95, in addition to lectures in other sites, I was invited to discuss gender in seminars for college teachers. Although there is substantial research on women in India, teaching about gender is newer than in the US; a specialist was available and was called in. Including gender in courses means, as a practical matter, updating most courses. In discussions with colleagues, reading extensively, tho more in social sciences than the physical and in the humanities, and more specifically in reviewing course and program proposals as a member of Brooklyn College's graduate curriculum committe, I have been stunned to find that for the most part women are excluded, marginalized or considered in stereotypical ways. The gendering of social structures and perception of gender in men who hold particular positions are not addressed. That's out of date.

On sexual harassment, there is ample research to warrant not only clear expression of administrators that it will not be tolerated, but also training sessions for all members in a university community. The federal EEOC recommends clear pointers to intolerance. In CUNY alone I found the extent of sexual harassment so prevalent and the damage done so severe, I organized a campaign to get a stronger policy. (We got some of what we wanted). I don't know how routine training sessions are in corporations, but they seem to be fairly common. A reason, of course, is that they don't want to be sued. And the Supreme Court, I believe, will this year follow up its decision of a few years ago that a complainant in a school may claim monetary damages in a case that tests just who may be sued.

I wish Visions had pointed out the conjunction of sexual harassment with students' race/ethnic minority status, as the New York State Task Force does. I also wish Visions had included a president's report on the status of women in each university to the university community, not only to boards and state legislatures. I think students, staff, faculty and administrators are entitled to know what's going on their campuses.

Your general claim that women are doing fine in academia is simply wrong. Your evidence is not credible. You make glossy statements and omit problems, some of which I alluded to above. Data on faculty ranks analyzed by sex show clearly that the higher the rank the maler and paler the faculty. In CUNY the data led the Women's Coalition to sue; we collected backup data and we won. As to your suggestion that women may not be in engineering because of preferences. That's a tired response. The same sort of thing was said about the scarcity or absence of women in institutions of higher education. The picture began to change, particularly in professional and graduate schools, when the federal govt. in 1972's Title IX said it would withhold funds if they were found to discriminate on the basis of sex. No, sorry to say, some people don't 'do the right thing', as you put it, unless they must.

Visions is an excellent document for others to build from.