An excellent woman, again

Janet Rapelye, Princeton's newly named dean of admission, is an excellent choice by any measure. Her experience leading Wellesley's admission office will likely help her succeed here. Wellesley, prominent among the Seven Sisters, has an institutional history and sense of tradition much like Princeton's.

Few other schools are forced to sort through as many applications as Princeton. The job will be a new level of challenge for Rapelye, who was able to accept roughly half of all applicants at Wellesley. She will also, of course, have to adjust to a coeducational applicant pool.

Looking at her previous experience, we believe Rapelye will likely be a strong and successful dean. We wish her all the best in her new post.

Rapelye was the main focus of yesterday's announcement, but the news also brought renewed focus to another woman: President Tilghman. Since her administration began, Tilghman has attracted nationwide attention for the large number of women she has appointed to high-ranking posts.

Tilghman has repeatedly described herself as "blind" to gender when making administrative appointments. We do not think, however, that a leader who has shown herself so keenly perceptive in other areas, and who has been praised for her role as a trailblazing woman in the academy, could possibly be insensitive to gender.

The Provost, Dean of the Wilson School, Dean of the Engineering School, and now Dean of Admission — all Tilghman's choices for key leadership roles — are women. Each one is eminently well qualified, and independent of gender politics, each was a strong choice for her post.

Open discrimination against women in the academy ended only recently. The applicant pools from which these appointments were made are still male-dominated. At the same time, there is an overwhelming demand for superlatively qualified women leaders at all universities. It seems implausible that this many women — a standout group in the Ivy League — could have ended up at Princeton through a completely gender-blind process.

We believe a careful assessment of Tilghman's choices can only lead to the conclusion that she does consider gender a "plus factor" when choosing among excellent candidates. Her public claims to the contrary are needless: There is a strong argument for gender-based affirmative action in the academy, and she should not be afraid to make it.

We believe there is room for a constructive, positive discussion about the value of gender diversity in the academy. This discussion can begin as soon as Tilghman acknowledges the gender preference that her pattern of appointments clearly reflects. — The Daily Princetonian Opinion Board