****Note this article quotes some antiquated terms for LGBTQ+ individuals and references to unethical “conversation therapy”. ***
One of the mechanisms that academia has used to maintain its predominance is surveillance: maintaining tight control over student and faculty behavior is one way for the institution to chase “prestige”. Such control upholds the white, masculine, heterosexual space, notably in STEM fields, and marginalizes the other. With the advent of digital technology, surveillance takes on an entirely new level, that is far more intrusive and focused on conformity, productivity, and efficiency. Surveillance originates not just from the university, but by the media, peers, and technology companies. The psychological consequences have been severe.
Gracious Living
Before the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, most American undergraduate students were subject to strict rules of behavior that affected where they lived, when they socialized and who they socialized with, what they wore, and when they had to return to their living quarters for the evening. The university assumed the role of in loco parentis, usually with the rights to regulate student’s social and sexual lives. In fact, court cases such as the 1913 Gott v. Berea College and 1924 Stetson University v. Hunt upheld universities’ right to expel students who did not adhere to these social codes (Lee 2011; Patel 2019).
Female students were usually subjected to much stricter standards, and for a longer duration, than their male counterparts. For example, women were often required to live in campus housing for the entire duration of their education with a curfew, while upperclassmen male students could eventually move off campus. Graduate women students were often required to live on campus as well, while graduate men were not. These rules became a convenient excuse to keep the enrollment of women limited to available on-campus housing for women (Coeds Invade Alumni Luncheon, Call for Enrollment Reduction 1970).
Gracious Living Dinners at Mount Holyoke
Curfews also curtailed the hours women could spend in the library, hampering study time. This also contributed to a culture where women were discouraged from STEM pursuits. In 1920, about 80% of female undergraduates attended coeducational institutions which increased to 90% in 1950, which meant they had to regularly contend with patriarchal forces. For example, women at Radcliffe, the “Harvard Annex” which had the same admission exams as Harvard, had to contend with negative stereotypes about their appearances and intelligence (Clemente 2009).
As the 1950s rolled along, more effort was made to emphasize the femininity of college women via campus beauty contests, profiles in fashion magazines, and advice to keep up their appearances, even during busy finals. For example, at Cornell University, a culture of “gracious living” for women abounded, even though women had higher grades than male students (Altschuler and Karmnick 2014).
Plath, a then student at Smith College, at a dance with her fellow interns from “Mademoiselle magazine”. For the dance, they were set up with hired male dates. Plath was disturbed by the emphasis on glamour at beauty at her internship rather than intellectual rigor. Image from “Red Comet” by Heather Clark.
The novel The Bell Jar, set in 1953, is infamous for the repulsion its college-aged protagonist, Esther, feels towards the fashion magazine she is interning at. She is disturbed by staged photoshoots of her intern cohort which featured dates, champagne, and dresses. This event was based on Sylvia Plath’s own experience as an intern at the magazine Mademoiselle, which she found unstimulating due to its overemphasis on the femininity to which the interns were expected to conform. Despite being a straight-A student with literary ambitions, she was subjected to these double standards her male peers were not and perpetuating them by appearing in photos and articles disturbed nation-wide.
However, such a “culture” became a way to better observe, isolate, and control female students.
Campus Stings
LGBTQ+ students also struggled in such an atmosphere, as homosexuality was increasingly pathologized by the medical and legal establishments. At the time, universities and medical authorities framed same-sex behavior under the category of “homosexuality,” a term that carried pathological connotations distinct from contemporary LGBTQ+ identities. Hence, a culture of student surveillance against LGBTQ+ students emerged, complete with sting operations, a curtailment of speech, and a refusal to recognize gay student groups and protests.
For example, there were secret “purges” of students suspected of homosexuality, notably at Harvard University. Following the 1920 suicide of undergraduate Cyril Wilcox, President A. Lawrence Lowell and five deans worked behind closed doors to entrap Harvard affiliates linked to the gay Boston community. Their behavior was branded as “deviant”, and contrary to the pursuit of education, resulting in ten undergraduates, one graduate student, an alumnus, and one faculty member being dismissed.
As the 20th century progressed, expulsions of gay students were more publicized. These cases were unique because they were reported in national newspapers and resulted in formal University procedures for the disciplining and treatment of gay students. In October 1943, a faculty member reported to President Rainey of the University of Texas that two former students had been arrested on charges of homosexuality and that one student had named a specific faculty member at the University of Texas that they had been involved with. Rainey reported the issue to the State Director of Public Safety and a subsequent investigation resulted in ten faculty and fifteen students who were expelled, dismissed, or left. The Board of Regents argued that Rainey did not take aggressive enough action and Rainey was fired in November 1944 (Nash and Silverman 2015).
In June 1948, two students of the same sex were found in a car on the property of the University of Wisconsin and then were arrested. Several other students were arrested in the following days. Four of the five students pleaded guilty and were given a year’s probation and were probably dismissed by the University.
Students who were suspected of homosexuality were sometimes sent for psychiatric evaluation. The head of psychiatric services at the University of Wisconsin was a woman named Dr. Annette Washburne who argued that so-called “true homosexuals” should be expelled from campus and were a menace. She believed that those labelled “pseudo homosexuals” could benefit from psychotherapy to develop “normal heterosexual patterns” (Nash and Silverman 2015).
Even war hero Keith Pritchett’s degree was withheld after he was charged under sodomy laws. The University of Wisconsin would only give the degree if he agreed to a year of psychiatric counseling. Pritchett argued that he experienced financial difficulties obtaining this and even his instructor in the Air Training Squadron argued in his defense, but the University would not grant the degree.
At the University of Missouri in May 1948, E.K. Johnston, was a tenured faculty member who was named a leader of a “homosexual ring” of 48 students, faculty, and community members. Johnson was dismissed and five men pled guilty. The University then developed a system to handle and discipline these cases. Disgustingly, Dean Brady met with Washburne and adopted a system for sending suspected students to a psychiatrist—to determine if the student was a “true” or “pseudo homosexual” which would then determine the student’s discipline (Nash and Silverman 2015).
Student Richard Jackson was also expelled due to being suspected of attending same-sex parties. In 1949, Jackson fought to be admitted and argued that he had been denied due process. He argued that the Committee on the Discipline of Men used sodium amatol (“truth-serum”) during questioning of students and faculty who had implicated Jackson. They argued that the process was also “undemocratic”. Jackson attempted to apply to the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago but was not admitted when they learned why he had been dismissed. At the University of Kansas, gay students were less likely to be expelled than heterosexual students if they were caught in sexual situations but were more likely to advise “treatment” of students (Nash and Silverman 2015).
The 1950s were increasingly repressive against LGBTQ+ students, influenced by McCarthy-era prejudice. Many students experienced isolation and delayed exploring their sexuality until after college. Some students found community by participating in school plays, which was a vehicle for many men to explore same-sex longings. Attempts to develop community through these avenues helped to set the stage for the gay rights movement in later decades (Marine 2011). Moreover, the Alfred Kinsey report in 1948 revealed a broader view of sexuality, suggesting that roughly a third of men and women had had same-sex sexual experiences (Marine 2011 ; Nash and Silverman 2015). Researcher Evelyn Hooker also argued for more expansive vision of human sexuality, though the medical establishment continued to pathologize certain sexual identities.
Protests, Activism were successful at changing surveillance culture
Cornell University’s campus protests against “in loco parentis” in the 1950s. See the formal dress students wore to cross the quad.
The push to end this “surveillance” culture began in the late 1950s and early 1960s. After World War II, the influx of GIs, who were older than the typical college freshmen, were less willing to tolerate intrusion into their personal lives. One of the first cases of student activism against university in parentis loco was at Cornell University in 1958. After a riotous 1957 Spring Weekend which resulted in the death of a student, the President’s Committee on Student Activities imposed a new, more stringent social code on students in the Fall of 1957. Student groups rejected this social code, but when word came that the President’s Committee on Student Activities was considering a ban on unchaperoned off-campus parties, negative opinion against this flourished.
On May 23 and 24 1958, students took to the streets to protest Cornell President Mallott against treating them like children. At night, then encouraged women to break curfew and protest. An effigy of Mallott hanged from an elm tree was burned in. John Summerskill, the vice president for student affairs, negotiated the beginning of the end for university in loco parentis at Cornell University (Altschuler and Karmnick 2014). More autonomy was granted to student conduct, who now would report to committees of faculty and students.
Throughout the 1960s, other American universities would lose parietal hours, curfews, and social conduct restrictions. A 1961 court ruling, Dixon v. Alabama, ruled that due process was required before the expulsion a student for misconduct (in this case participating in a civil rights demonstration), and a 1967 court ruling, Hammond v. South Carolina State College, ruled that the suspension of students for demonstrating without prior college approval was “incompatible with constitutional guarantees and is invalid” began to chip away at in loco parentis (Lee 2011; Patel 2019).
By the 1970s, Universities were seen legally as “bystanders”. A 1979 Bradshaw v Rawlings indicated that Delaware Valley college was not liable for the injury of a drunk student in an off-campus university sponsored picnic (Patel 2019). A 1983 ruling in Mullins v. Pine Manor college took a more middle ground which ruled in favor of a student who claimed that the University did not take enough step steps to protect her when she was raped on campus (Patel 2019).
A chapter of the Gay Liberation Front becomes official student organization in April 1970 at Northen Illinois University
In the late 1960s, gay student organizations began to emerge on college campuses. Some of the first college groups were at Columbia University, Cornell University, and New York Universities (Homophile Group Explained 1967; The Homophile League 1967; Raj 2020). These groups focused on providing counselling to students questioning their sexuality, worked to integrate school-sponsored dances, and organized lectures. They also protested the homophobic treatment of sexual identity by the medical establishment. However, students still experienced hostile climates. Administrators often refused to recognize such groups. The 1969 Stonewall uprising marked a turning point, spurring an increase in gay student organizations and demonstrations on college campuses (Marine 2011).
Campus resource centers for LGBTQ+ students began to emerge. The “Lesbian-Gay Males Programs Office” at the University of Michigan was the first campus resource center in 1971. Through the 1970s, BGLT campus resource centers were mainly at large, public universities. Activism in the 1980s pushed for more centers at smaller, private institutions. These centers were founded through creative activism and persistence through homophobic resistance. Activism and support for LGBTQ+ student centers continued successfully through the 1980s and 1990s (Garvey, Sanders, and Flint 2017).
Conclusion
The university has a history of keeping tight control over its student and faculty. By the 21st century, however, the deployment of technical surveillance systems makes this process more efficient and insidious. The current collection of ‘data’ is yet another form of value accumulation of the university. However, this constant scrutiny, pressure, and intolerance, has a delirious effect on student and faculty well-being. Such scrutiny, homophobia, sexism, and racism were effective ways to segregate and weaken groups which threatened the white-male, heterosexual spaces of academia, particularly in highly technical STEM fields.
References
Altschuler, Glenn C, and Isaac Karmnick. 2014. Cornell: A History, 1940-2015. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Clemente, Deirdre. 2009. “‘Prettier Than They Used to Be’: Femininity, Fashion, and the Recasting of Radcliffe’s Reputation, 1900–1950.” The New England Quarterly 82(4): 637–66.
“Coeds Invade Alumni Luncheon, Call for Enrollment Reduction.” 1970. Yale Daily News: 1.
Garvey, Jason C., Laura A. Sanders, and Maureen A. Flint. 2017. “Generational Perceptions of Campus Climate among LGBTQ Undergraduates.” Journal of College Student Development 58(6): 795–817.
“Homophile Group Explained.” 1967. The Cornell Daily Sun: 13.
Lee, Philip. 2011. “The Curious Life of in Loco Parentis at American Universities.” Higher Education in Review 8: 65–90.
Marine, Susan. 2011. Stonewall’s Legacy--Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Students in Higher Education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nash, Margaret A., and Jennifer A.R. Silverman. 2015. “‘An Indelible Mark’: Gay Purges in Higher Education in the 1940s.” History of Education Quarterly 55(4): 441–59.
Patel, Vimal. 2019. “The New ‘In Loco Parentis.’” The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Raj, Roshni. 2020. “NYU Remembers 50th Anniversary of Weinstein Occupation Today.” Washington Square Journal.
“The Homophile League.” 1967. The Columbia Spectator: 4.