Debate over appointment reflects our own biases

The new Dean of Admission is a woman. Thirty years ago, when Princeton first adopted a system of coeducation, Halsie Bowen, a former law enforcement official, was the only female in the administration. Her title was Dean of Women. Today, I am a second generation Princeton woman, and Dean Rapelye joins a host of other women leaders on campus, including President Tilghman. Still, classmates, upon discovering that I am a legacy student, often ask how my father enjoyed Princeton. And while our Dean of Women has been replaced by many women deans, the appointment of Rapelye brought on another wave of criticism and comment on President Tilghman's "favoritism" of women in the appointment process. The contradictory messages of having so many women at the helm of Princeton, and of the frequent derisive remarks about Nassau Hall as a girls' club, should tell us that while women have come a long way on this campus, not nearly enough has changed.

President Tilghman, since taking office, has appointed six men and four women to senior administrative posts. But facts and numbers didn't stop the opinion board of the 'Prince' from declaring that the arrival of so many women without an implicit policy of gender-based affirmative action was "implausible." The Tory, a paragon of responsible journalism, offered 11 reasons for alumni not to donate to Princeton's Annual Giving this year. "President Tilghman's sexist administrative appointments" made the list twice. Is it really so implausible that there are enough talented women in academia that we could find four of them without searching high and low for a female? Is it sexist to appoint women to four out of ten senior positions, particularly when those women are at the top of their fields? When will we finally accept that women can earn positions of power based on their qualifications and not their chromosomes?

Many on campus say they just don't believe that a woman like Tilghman would be blind to gender in appointments. Why not? Feminists have often been discredited by opponents who classify them as insular, a coven of women gathered together to edge men out of the best jobs and the top salaries. Shirley Tilghman, however, is both a woman and a university president. She can believe that women are entitled to equal rights and opportunities while still doing her job to the best of her ability, appointing women when they are the best candidates for positions, the people most likely to enrich University life. By assuming that Tilghman is putting a gender agenda before her obligations as President, we discredit her as a professional and an academic. This is how progress is thwarted and leaders put down.

The message sent to undergraduates at Princeton is also a troubling one. As a woman aspiring to professional success, the complaints about the appointment of "one more woman" to the administration tell me that my success, in whatever field I choose, will be questioned on the basis of my gender. There are enough obstacles for professional women: the struggle to balance work and family, the constraints of maternity leave on the tenure or partnership track, sexual harassment, salary differentials, deals and decisions made on golf courses or over a drink and a cigar. Already women must work harder to get ahead, to be seen as both feminine and powerful, smart and competent. We should not add a societal perception of favor-itism to the burdens faced by professional women, particularly not if we value diversity in the workplace or equality of opportunity.

The double standard inherent in critics and questioners of Rapelye's appointment is obvious. No one would question the appointment of four men in a row. What is most infuriating is that we believe this double standard is acceptable. Shirley Tilghman cares about women's issues. She also cares about Princeton. Each and every one of the women she has appointed has been tremendously qualified, a role model for female students on this campus. It should tell us something that no one is questioning the merits of these new administrators. No one can find fault with the resume of Janet Rapelye, or the experience or dynamism of Amy Guttman, Maria Klawe, or Anne-Marie Slaughter. Instead, these women are being put into a group and called on their gender. Thirty years after the first women moved into single sex dorms and met with the Dean of Women, we live in a world in which females can garner these qualifications and work their way to the top. But we do not live in a world in which they can do so without regard to gender. Women are not stealing jobs from men; they are earning them. Shirley Tilghman and her advisors know this. They are blind to gender. The real question is, are we?

Katherine Reilly is a sophomore from Short Hills, N.J.