Article Wellesley’s Statement My Response to Wellesley Hate Mail
Wellesley College President Diana Chapman Walsh’s response to my article in Rolling Stone seems to me to be excessive.
The language used in the President’s response makes it clear how desperate the Wellesley administration is to distance itself from the article: irresponsible, sensationalist, grossly distorted, appalling, prurient, salacious, ludicrous, stereotypic, deplorable, immature, offensive, reckless–and that all in just ten sentences.
The Wellesley administration has even resorted to ad hominem attacks against my character. In Boston University’s Daily Free Press, Wellesley spokeswoman Mary Ann Hill says that I was motivated by “sexism” to write the article. It seems clear that the Wellesley administration is trying to discredit me and my article. What I don’t understand is why.
In my article, I tried to shed light on Wellesley’s unique sexual climate. In my opinion, Wellesley’s open, accepting, and tolerant sexual atmosphere is a healthy and positive thing. In a world where hate crimes are committed against gays, where many women have eating disorders, and where women’s sexual habits are judged by different standards than those of men, women’s colleges like Wellesley provide a safe and accepting environment–where many of those prejudices do not exist, where women are encouraged to feel confident about their bodies, and where women feel freer to experiment sexually with various kinds of relationships. And yet, the Wellesley administration denies this, calls it “an affront,” and says my depiction is “grossly distorted.”
It offends me that Ms. Walsh seems to assume that anyone who dares to write an article about sexual life at Wellesley is automatically against women’s colleges and anti-feminist–or as she puts it, part of “the backlash against successful female students.” In fact, I strongly support women’s colleges. I think they’re an incredibly effective avenue for women’s education and empowerment.
President Walsh suggests that my article is typical of “stereotypic reporting” about women’s colleges. Actually, my article rejects the stereotype that women at women’s colleges are desperate and starved for sex. As I discuss in my article, I think that Wellesley’s culture of sexual experimentation is better explained by Wellesley’s open and tolerant environment, the way it encourages women to feel confident about their bodies, and by the messages of empowering feminism that encourage students to break out of traditional barriers.
President Walsh says in her statement that these “behaviors” are not “endemic” to women’s colleges–making sexual experimentation sound like a disease.
Why is the Wellesley administration so threatened by an honest discussion of sexual experimentation? Is it the idea that Wellesley women are having sex? That some are lesbians? That some explore non-traditional relationships with the men on campus? Only two relationships I mention in the article even violate Wellesley’s college code. The administration should not be ashamed of the fact that the students have sexual lives.
The students at Wellesley College have created an atmosphere of sexual openness and liberation that does not exist at most co-ed colleges. But by going to such extreme measures to deny that this atmosphere exists, the administration at Wellesley College is implying there is something wrong with it. My article reported about the sexual climate at Wellesley but did not pass judgment. It is unfortunate that the Wellesley administration does.
Wellesley College Statement in Response to Rolling Stone article
My hastily written counter-press release responding to the president’s statement