Coeducation: A Trustee’s Recollection

 Editor’s note: Marvin W. Peterson is professor emeritus of higher education at the University of Michigan and former director of the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. He received Trinity’s Alumni Medal for Excellence in 1976.  

As I received recent announcements from Trinity about the various “Women at the Summit” events occurring as the College marked 50 years of coeducation, it sparked the realization that I may be one of the only living members of the Board of Trustees at the time this transition occurred. Perhaps I am the only living one! These are a few of my recollections of the board dynamics, issues, and discussions during that critical period of Trinity’s history; I served as an alumni trustee from 1969 to 1975 in the period when the transition was taking place. 

How I came to be on the board is interesting. In college, I had been active in a number of leadership roles. I was a class president, president of the Student Senate, a member of Medusa. I knew most of the executive officers well (in fact, my dates for party weekends even stayed at either Dean Lacy’s or President Jacobs’s home). After graduation, I spent two years at the Harvard Business School obtaining an M.B.A. and then worked there for another four years (1962–66) as an assistant dean. During those years, I returned to campus two or three times each year for various events. I also became involved with the Boston alumni club and served as president. From 1966–68, I obtained my Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and in 1968 became a research associate in the Institute for Social Research and an assistant professor of higher education in the university’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, a doctoral program and research center focusing on higher education. My own interests were in policy, governance, and management in colleges, universities, and higher educational systems. 

Apparently during that time, there was some concern by the Trinity trustees that they should have some younger blood on the board. Given my strong interest in the College and prior relationships, I was nominated, agreed to run, and was elected. Interestingly, although I was already nine years out of Trinity (Class of 1960), I was at least 20–25 years younger than the next oldest trustee. The trustees, like those at most small liberal arts colleges, were successful former graduates of the College who held primarily professional positions in legal, financial, and business firms or in government and were mostly from the Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston East Coast corridor. With my addition, there were now two members with higher education positions and expertise. I joined Daniel Alpert, who was a professor of physics, dean of the graduate college, and director of the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Illinois on the board. 

The dynamics of the board were particularly interesting as we were dealing with issues that members had strong feelings about. In the mid-1960s, many liberal arts colleges were experiencing both declining enrollment and financial problems as well as reflecting the racial issues of the 1960s. Indeed, in 1968, the College had experienced student demonstrations including a blockade of the trustees regarding the need to increase minority enrollment and financial assistance. How to deal with these racial issues were still dominating the board agenda when the decision to admit women was being discussed. Needless to say, both race and admission of women were hot topics about which an older, male alumni board who had experienced Trinity as a “men’s” college felt strongly. 

In approaching these emotionally loaded topics, I was particularly fond of and respected President Lockwood’s leadership not only in guiding the board to the decision but also during the transitional controversies that followed. The general pattern of our board meetings began with a closed trustee social hour and dinner in the president’s house on Vernon Street. After dinner, we would move into the living room for a discussion led by President Lockwood, usually focusing on the most difficult topics on the following day’s agenda. Differences were aired—usually respectfully. One pattern that I detected was how President Lockwood used Dan Alpert and me. Knowing that the senior trustees respected him, he would usually encourage Dan to talk about how an issue or problem under discussion had been handled at the University of Illinois. Then he would call on me to explain how some other colleges that Trinity considered peers were dealing with them. The message was clear. Dan assured them the issue could be dealt with, and I gave them examples of how institutions they respected had dealt with it. When even some of the most controversial issues were raised at the next day’s meeting, discussion was limited and members voted their priorities. 

Although the decision to admit women had been made the year prior to my joining the trustees, many complex and controversial decisions were yet to be made. When, for example, should we start admitting women—right away or after more advance preparation? As I recall, we started right away but admitted some transfer women as well as freshman so there were upper-class role models. How big should the College become? We lacked facilities to handle a sizable increase, and that would be expensive for an institution with financial limitations. The resolution was a gradual increase. How do we house a growing and mixed student population? This was a serious financial problem to be addressed that required some serious dedicated fundraising and eventually led to the expansion of the North Campus area. How many women should we admit? What should the balance of male and female students be? This was partially resolved by the fact that (as I recall) the initial women applicants were as strong academically as men. If we were to admit more women and fewer men, what would be the impact on Trinity’s revered sports teams? We needed to grow fast enough to accommodate the current male enrollment to populate our sports teams. What about sports for women? If so, what ones? Clearly not football! But a whole new set of sports would require more facilities and coaches. To some extent, Congress’s passage of Title IX in 1972 requiring equal access to sports for men and women resolved that issue, and Trinity has added women’s sports successfully. Should the living arrangements and new dormitories accommodate coed living? Wisely I recall the trustees left this controversial issue to the administration, which would then have to take the heat. How should the curriculum change to reflect both the changing times and the growing women student population? Clearly that was an issue for faculty, the administration, and the new students to tackle over time. 

Obviously during my period on the trustees, not all of these issues were resolved, but they were anticipated and have been addressed over time as the College has continued to grow, to become a vibrant coeducational institution, to introduce curricular changes that reflected the changing times and students, and to have strong faculty, student, and administrative leadership that reflects the changing mix of a truly coeducational campus.