“Educational administration” — *shudder.* Even worse than a major ending in “studies.” Waypoint #35 of the Decline of American Civilization was the invention of the graduate school of education.

Well, Elder Packer has an EdD in educational administration, I believe. Elder Nelson got an MD and, 7 years later, a PhD (can’t find the subject quickly, but probably not anything ending in “studies”, seeing as he was a well-known heart surgeon by then). Elder Oaks, of course, has a JD. Elder Scott all but earned what would have been a PhD in nuclear engineering (he wasn’t awarded a formal degree because his work was for the government and classified). And, of course, Elder Holland got a PhD in American Studies. Elder Bednar has a PhD in organizational behavior. Elder Cook and Elder Christoffersen also earned JD’s. Elder Eyring has a PhD in business administration. So, maybe only a few PhD’s in there, but plenty of D’s of some sort.

The next year, I was one of 3 men in a Women’s Studies class. I smile because I was one of two men in my Women’s Studies class at BYU. Talk about being outnumbered… Anyhow, the class was somewhat interesting, but not much different from my expectations. (My expectations being that we would talk some about differences between men and women, then spend the bulk of the class talking about the social injustices against women and all the ways that our society needs to change.)

Some people might see that as offensive, but — sparing y’all the long explanation — I just think that the focus should be more on future direction and less on past infractions. Which is, in a roundabout way, why I hope that this reorganization will lead to an institute for gender studies (both men and women). I really think that this WRI move is transitional, with an end goal of setting up a more valuable and prominent program.

I rejected BYU in favor of a state university so I don’t do BYU logic well. I know that art majors must study bodysuit clad models etc. So you can really take Sociology from BYU and not talk about gay and lesbian sociology? I remember the guest panel of gays and lesbians that came to my sociology class and (back then) the groans and oooohs of the back row sorority crowd as they discussed their social practices. I bet today (20 years later) the same panel probably would not elicit much of a visceral reaction at the same university.

The nest year, I was one of 3 men in a Women’s Studies class. I was naive and didn’t know what I was getting into, but I learned a lot. I was introduced to Maya Angelou, Ashtoreth, and Sapphos. We read Ann Moody’s “Growing up in Mississippi.” We read one of those wierd stories about an Island inhabited only by women who were able to reproduce and how their society adapts without male influence. Also read “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin which was rather depressing.

We had some good discussions about Eve and one in one of my essays I compared the LDS scripture’s treatment of Eve to the the treatment of Eve in the OT. The instructor wrote the question in my essay, “Is this really what the Mormon’s believe?”

I cannot think that a university of BYU’s size and stature could ignore the need to have a Women’s Studies program. I hope that the theory that the move uses resources more efficiently is borne out.

You’ve raised some great points in this post, but I need to clarify one thing – you say the minor only has 6-8 students enrolled each year. However,

A – the minor actually *graduates* 6-8 students each year, which is only a fraction of the students who enroll. Why do so few finish the minor? Well, most of them are scared away by the rigorous (but highly rewarding) research class they have to complete as a capstone to the minor. Is the low enrollment problematic? Absolutely, and perhaps that was Renata Forste’s motivation for pushing to get control of the minor into her own hands.

B – controlling the minor was only one of the many responsibilities of the WRI. Even if moving it into Dr. Forste’s grasping hands (sorry, it just irks me a bit that she has no background in women’s Studies and yet managed to arrange this by joining the internal review committee) is for the best of the minor, why not allow the WRI to continue pursuing collaborative, interdisciplinary research with the outside-BYU funds they’ve been using all these years?

C – I graduated from the minor, along with a BA in English. I love sociology, and as a result I made sure to take a few sociology classes to cover requirements in the minor. But the fact that the minor was not housed in the social sciences prevented me from ever feeling like the other humanities majors and I were being academically marginalized. As an alumnus of the program, I can assure you that many students from other colleges will feel alienated by this decision to put an interdisciplinary study into one discipline.

I always thought Mormon Utah gave women the right to vote was to simply make more Mormon voters. Not true? As patriarchal as the pioneers were, I can’t imagine it was thinking women had something to offer.

Thank you for providing a clear view of what is going on.

I can see why the WRI could be cut from a numbers standpoint. Throughout the Cougareat, all the tables have little cards advertising the women’s studies minor, but I guess it didn’t boost enrollment enough. The grating part of the decision is the way it was handed down, a done deal, with no opportunity for student and community input. I suppose that’s just a result of our authoritarian culture.

Word.

And as for Brigham wanting the women to vote, with 26 wives why would you want to surrender such a large constinuency to gender bias?

A Women’s Research Institute need only exist in the furtherance of the above. How better to conceive and bear children, how better to raise children in The Church, and how better to fix my dinner! And God in His Wisdom had already established such a program in The Church: Relief Society!!!

When I was at the Y, women knew their place, which was as Child Development & Family Relations majors.

I told the 15 that allowing women to vote was setting a bad precedent! I know this to be true in Jesus name, amen.

FWIW, I think it’s quite unlikely that David Magleby has a grudge of some sort against WS. With the Social Work program, it had stagnated academically. Faculty were not pursuing continuing research or education programs that were anywhere near the standard which the rest of the university is held to. “Insider” information made it clear that the university was fully willing to re-form the program once everything was for sure up to standards. The WRI was quite possibly in the same situation, where it had come to a point where future growth was appearing tenuous (and that doesn’t do much for the university’s women’s research reputation). I wouldn’t be surprised to see the WRI or a similar institute be re-established in the future after a new foundation and presence for the program is formed.

Faux, Thanks! I wanted to be balanced in this post, because there are so many things we still do not know about the direction Women’s Studies will take at BYU in the future. What a shame it would be to try to bring back the WRI if there are better ways to strengthen the program and encourage women’s studies. But I can admit to having a certain amount of regret that the Institute will be discontinued.

Alice, I certainly hope gender studies are important enough to BYU students, faculty, and administration that they will not allow them to be marginalized, and that the demand for great classes and research will grow and keep them alive and thriving.

I strongly appreciate the balance that you often bring to controversial issues. You know how to dig deeply and how to bring out subtleties that others miss. You are one of my blog heroines (or for the sake of parity, should I say heroes?).