When, 200 years ago, the founders of Union created a college in Schenectady, they broke new ground. For the first time, a nondenominational college was born.
Throughout the years, Union maintained this sense of innovation. Modern languages, hard sciences, innovative financing, and a planned campus were some of the changes emanating from Nistiquona Hill. However, it was the introduction of engineering into the undergraduate curriculum in 1845 that, perhaps even more than the other Union firsts, set this college apart from other institutions.
This fall, we celebrate the sesquicentennial of engineering at Union. We do so with the knowledge that what we initiated in 1845, expanded during our centennial in 1895 with the introduction of electrical engineering, and sometimes feel uncomfortable with today must-and will-be improved. Accordingly, in the course of this year, we will unveil the engineering curriculum for the
twenty-first century that is being developed thanks to a generous grant from the General Electric Foundation.
Paradoxically, this historically-innovative institution was hardly different from others when it came to the education of women. Not until 1970 did the College admit women on an equal footing with men. So, while we take great pride in 200 years of educating men and 150 years of providing a first-rate education for aspiring engineers, we cannot be very proud of the fact that today we are celebrating but twenty-five years of women on the campus.
Perhaps it is overstating the case to say that we were not very forward-thinking when it came to educating women at Union. Certainly, such education championed by few, for the Western tradition was that higher education was a male domain. Listen to what some of our Founding Fathers had to say about education:
- John Adams, in writing to Abigail Adams, said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”
- Benjamin Franklin, a few brief years before this college was founded, claimed that seminaries of learning should be encouraged because they “supply the succeeding age with men qualified to serve the public with honor;” and,
- Thomas Jefferson, writing just prior to his founding of the University of Virginia, said that “a female education … has occupied my attention so far only as the education of my own daughters occasionally required.”
Bright men, well-respected men, and yet, in light of today's perspectives, men whose views could be labeled as astonishingly narrow-minded. So it should not be surprising that when Schenectady activists established a college “for the instruction and education of youth,” they defined youth as male.
How could a college that prided itself on innovation with respect to technology be so traditional (and backward) when it came to sociological change? Rather than think that our position was unique, we should remember that we reflect society to a large extent. When it came to technology, let us remember that Franklin-the same Franklin who talked about seminaries to educate men
wanted to have “some mathematical instruments and apparatus for experiments in natural philosophy, and for mechanics.” And Jefferson, in designing the curriculum for the University of Virginia, followed the lead of Union's legendary president, Eliphalet Nott, and included modern languages, mechanics, statics, dynamics, pneumatics, acoustics, optics, astronomy, geography, chemistry, botany, and zoology.
But to say that we only reflect society would be letting ourselves off the hook too easily. Why? Well, for one thing, although American society embraced technological change a century before it “gave” women the right to vote, it took Union an additional half-century to conclude that women should have the same rights as men. For another, there were colleges-Antioch and Oberlin come to
mind that opened their doors to women in the nineteenth century.
Even when, reluctantly, this College began to examine seriously the question of coeducation, the arguments that were raised were traditional stereotypical ones. A recurring theme, for instance, against the admission of women concerned science and engineering. Operating on the assumption that women would not be interested in those areas, opponents of coeducation said that, if it were introduced at Union, it would endanger our status in those areas. Or, as one not very enlightened writer put it, “the female of the species has a positive aversion to chemistry, physics, and, of course, engineering in all its forms.” Obviously, even Union writers can be wrong.
Is change difficult? Of course. Whether technological or sociological, change comes slowly. For me, the fact that change comes slowly at colleges and universities is the ultimate paradox, for it is here that we open the minds of young men and women and expose them to a whole range of thought. Yet, inexplicably, all too often we are myopic when it comes to looking at things in a new way.
If liberal arts colleges are to maintain their honored place in society, we must increasingly be sensitive to the need for change. Nowhere will change be more apparent in the first quarter of our third century of service than in the makeup of our student body. In 1983, college administrators were lamenting the decline in the number of high school graduates; now, many are beginning to breathe a sigh of relief because, until the year 2010, the number of high school graduates is expected to increase.
What we had all better come to realize quickly, though, is that the students graduating from high schools across the land in the next fifteen years will be dramatically different than in the past. Simply stated, during the course of that time, the young people coming to Union will have grown up in the computer, sound-bite, and video era and will, accordingly, have different learning styles and needs, and they will be part of a cultural change that will accompany an increase of 4.4
million students of color and a concomitant decrease of 3.8 million white students.
Those colleges that are able to adjust to change will have a
bright future. However, those who remain unable or unwilling to look at things and do things differently will have a difficult time indeed.
As we think what it is that we should do, we must always remember that we must take stands based on principle. We should insure, for example, that women-especially on the eve of our twenty-five year celebration-are equal partners at Union. For far too long women were invisible on this campus; for far too long, too, students of color were equally invisible. We cannot afford either to overlook or look through anyone or to allow any part of our society to remain invisible-not because it is expedient, but because it is right.
Rhetoric, though, must not be our legacy on this celebratory occasion. Rather than piously mouth platitudes about technology and the equality of women, let us develop an innovative speakers forum on technological issues of the day, terms abroad that enable liberal arts and engineering students to form teams to explore important questions, and interdisciplinary courses that bridge the liberal arts and engineering by examining issues of technology and society. Let us also insure that women are truly equal partners at Union by scrutinizing funding for athletics and pursuing sources of support for women in various academic fora.
We have so much to feel good about as we celebrate two of the events that took place at Union during our first 200 years. In both cases, however, opportunity and challenge confront us. We must reinvent, not simply readapt, what we already have. To this end, we must embrace change on the technological side and make sure that all of the students on this historic campus are given every opportunity to prepare for a useful life in the twenty-first century. And we must do so because it is right in every sense.