The First Committees to Establish Women's Studies

In 1971, a group of representatives from the Five Colleges and some community representatives met at the Valley Women’s Center for the first meeting of the Five College Committee on Women’s Studies/5 College Women’s Studies Seminar. Zillah Eisenstein, then a graduate student, served as the representative for UMass. The group’s purpose was to coordinate communication among various faculty interested in Women’s Studies and to encourage curriculum development. Coming out of this meeting, the committee produced a list of 5 College Women’s Studies courses.³ The existence of this publication, produced each semester thereafter, is a good indication that even without an official program in place yet at any of the colleges or at the university, some faculty were recognizing that their curricula needed to include the experiences of women and analyses of sex roles.

Also in 1971 Professor Lee Edwards of the UMass English department proposed to the Faculty Senate that a Committee on the Status of Women be formed. In April of that year the committee was approved by the senate. Its initial purpose was to gain a broader understanding of women’s experiences on campus, particularly regarding hiring; promotions and salaries; the tenure process; the establishment of a University Day Care Center; admissions of undergraduate and graduate women; financial aid; continuing education and counseling for women who were negotiating their educations and careers as well as marriage and/or children; and possibilities for part-time employment.⁴ Early members of this committee included several people who went on to help establish the Women’s Studies program, including Edwards, Dee Appley, and Arlyn Diamond.

The Committee’s first report proposed several actions for remedying the discrimination faced by women faculty and professional staff on campus and acknowledged that there was much more work to be done regarding part-time and non-professional staff and students. Several of the proposals had to do with hiring processes and ways to address the under-representation of women. Significantly, they asked that a new Associate Provost be appointed to direct an office whose mission would be to equalize the status of women on campus. In presenting this report to the Faculty Senate, Lee Edwards notified the other senators that the committee wished to revise their request for this new position so that it would address not only the status of women, but minorities as well. The group had been in conversation with members of the administration who had apparently suggested such a change.⁵ After some debate about the use of the pronoun “she” in the motion, as well as a question about whether men should count as minorities in the Home Economics and Nursing schools, the motion was delayed.⁶ The motion to include “minorities” in the job description of this position was defeated at the next meeting of the Senate and further debate ensued about the provisions of the committee’s report pertaining to parental leave and hiring practices. Lee Edwards took this opportunity to bring feminist arguments about the challenges of balancing family and career to the table. Using a classic anti-affirmative action argument, one senator suggested that the best candidate for the job should be hired regardless of sex or race. Other senators voiced their support for affirmative action policies like those proposed by the Committee on the Status of Women based on the history of discriminatory hiring on campus, both regarding white women and “minorities.” Finally, the Committee’s main motion was passed and an Associate Provost position was granted in order to improve the conditions of women at UMass.⁷

³ Ann Ferguson papers, Box 6, Special Collections and University Archives, UMass Amherst Library.

⁴ UMass Faculty Senate, Minutes of the 174th Regular Meeting, p. 9.

⁵ UMass Faculty Senate, Minutes of the 182nd Regular meeting, p. 12.

⁶ UMass Faculty Senate, Minutes of the 182nd Regular meeting, p. 15.

⁷ UMass Faculty Senate, Minutes of the 183rd Regular Meeting, pp. 9-14.