On Tuesday, April 8, President Esther Barazzone, students, and staff met in the Mellon Board Room for an informal conversation about the potential changes that face the undergraduate program and the university as a whole.
In her welcome, President Barazzone emphasized her commitment to undergraduate education and to women, as well as to the graduate program, which has financially supported itself and the undergraduate program since not long after its founding. According to Barazzone, this system is no longer possible in the current economy.
“We can’t damage one member of our family to protect another member of our family, and we’re getting dangerously close to that,” Barazzone said.
Barazzone welcomed questions, comments, and suggestions from students.
“I want to be responsive to you,” Barazzone said. “I’m rather more interested in hearing what you’re thinking.”
One major concern, voiced by first-year Maryann Fix, was about the future of Chatham’s diversity if the College for Women ceases to exist. Fix was “worried that the feelings of respect, being comfortable, and feeling that your identity is being accepted and loved” might be compromised if men were to be admitted into the undergraduate program.
In response, Barazzone explained that it is Chatham’s existence as a small liberal arts college (not its being a women’s college) that impacts its acceptance of all races, sexualities, and gender identities.
“Small institutions are dedicated to the development of every individual who comes,” she said.
Dean of Students Zauyah Waite agreed, adding that the value of diversity will not go away because “it’s what drives us.”
In order to preserve Chatham’s dedication to women, Barazzone has proposed a women’s institute that would conduct training and orientation for incoming faculty to ensure nondiscriminatory, gender-balanced classrooms if the college becomes coeducational.
Dean Waite also reminded students that the changes upon becoming coeducational would likely be gradual. According to Waite, undergraduate men would be a minority at first, and the “World Ready Women” of Chatham would be responsible for welcoming them.
President Barazzone brought up the potential for “a more subtle conflict between the women who come because it’s no longer a women’s college and the women who came because it’s a women’s college.”
Senior Liz Sawyer reminded the president that a divide already exists between students who do not want Chatham to become coeducational and those who would not mind the switch.
Barazzone understands this divide, but she encourages a “respect for differences of opinion,” and a “desire to create a productive environment,” among all students.
Regardless of whether or not the undergraduate program becomes coeducational, students and staff agree that more intensive marketing programs are necessary.
“We’re a great school with great Student Affairs activities, but there are so many academic programs that people don’t know about,” first-year Tahmina Tursonzadah said.
Vice President of Marketing and Communications Bill Campbell is also concerned about Chatham’s lack of academic marketing. According to Campbell, undergraduate education is evolving to mimic graduate education’s focus on academics and career preparation, and quantitative and qualitative market research shows that the college must put forth more academic marketing to attract prospective students.
In addition, President Barazzone would like to see undergraduate academic programming undergo a restructuring no matter what the board’s final decision on coeducation will be.
She believes that academic programming in its current state is not flexible enough and that self-designed study should be encouraged.
Barazzone also has problems with the current structure of tutorial. She believes that it should span across all four years of one’s study so that students can benefit from the process earlier in their education.
Both President Barazzone and students suggested and discussed many possibilities for academic changes and future programming, but none have been officially adopted yet.
President Barazzone proposed having a summit to discuss changes and suggestions for Chatham’s future regardless of whether or not the institution becomes coeducational because she and the Board of Trustees value student feedback.
“We’ll have another get together. I always learn a lot, and I thank you for it,” Barazzone said.
A summit could occur in May or early next semester, but official plans have yet to be made.
Thank you for posting this article. We, as alumnae, appreciate being able to find out what’s going on, on campus, and hearing from student perspectives.
A few points that struck me from the article:
“We can’t damage one member of our family to protect another member of our family, and we’re getting dangerously close to that,” Barazzone said.” And yet this is precisely what seems to be happening with the cannibalization of the CCW in order to make room for, and provide resources for, the graduate school and the School of Sustainability.
“Barazzone explained that it is Chatham’s existence as a small liberal arts college (not its being a women’s college) that impacts its acceptance of all races, sexualities, and gender identities.” During one of the town halls, if not all of them, Dr. Barazzone expressed concern about the liberal arts education and suggested a more technically career-oriented track was the way to save the undergraduate college.
“Vice President of Marketing and Communications Bill Campbell is also concerned about Chatham’s lack of academic marketing. According to Campbell, undergraduate education is evolving to mimic graduate education’s focus on academics and career preparation, and quantitative and qualitative market research shows that the college must put forth more academic marketing to attract prospective students.” And just what, exactly, has the $4.5 million in marketing that they’ve touted since the announcement gone to? If we haven’t been marketing our academic programs with that, what has Chatham been marketing? And if they haven’t been doing that marketing, I believe Mr. Campbell has no one to blame but himself.
“According to Waite, undergraduate men would be a minority at first, and the “World Ready Women” of Chatham would be responsible for welcoming them.”
Translation: “Hey, I know your entire campus culture is going to drastically alter and you are suddenly going to be second class citizens but be sweet and it’ll all be ok!”
Sit down, shut up, and throw out the welcome mats! Will that be the new school motto?
Ms. Fix brings up a fantastic point, one that many alumnae found when they were students at Chatham.
Another question that needs to be asked and answered: are there students who support co-education? or students who believe Chatham should remain a single-sex undergraduate institution? Who are they? What are their opinions on this issue?
Well they sure as beck won’t be able to keep the old motto, Sarah!
President Barazzone asserts that the Graduate programs have been subsidizing Chatham College for Women and warns that we are “dangerously close” to damaging “one member of our family to protect another member of our family.” In fact, the opposite is true: It is the College that has subsidized Chatham University. I am reminded of the women who are cast aside by husbands they have supported through law or medical school. CCW resources that have contributed to the University’s success range from its gorgeous, well-equipped campus to its outstanding reputation (brand).
Graduate students were first admitted in 1994. From then until, the Eastside campus opened in 2010, they ate in Anderson Dining Hall and congregated at Cafe Rachel. They played Frisbee and sunbathed on CCW’s lawn, read in the shade of the trees of Andrew Mellon’s Arboretum, and worked out and swam in the Athletic and Fitness Center. In fact, although the location of their classrooms has changed, grad students still enjoy the resources of the Shadyside campus, just a short Shuttle ride from Eastside. Courses associated with the School of Sustainability were also taught (and, I assume, still are) on CCW’s campus.
More significantly, without CCW’s longstanding reputation as a quality liberal arts college for women, there would be no Falk School of Sustainability. It’s unlikely that Chatham University would be the recipient of the estate of Sebastian Mueller whose lifelong commitment was enhancing women’s lives through education. It’s also unlikely that without its long association with CCW, the Falk Foundation–known for its commitment to justice, equality, and inclusion–would have made Chatham University the recipient of one of its two final grants.
Whether intentional or unintentional, the Administration and Board’s failure to recognize the College’s contributions to the University’s success demonstrates that we have not outgrown the need for institutions that put women first. CCW’s 145-year-old reputation within the business and philanthropic communities and in the City of Pittsburgh and beyond is worth more than any marketing and branding President Barazzone and Vice President Campbell can buy for any amount of money. #savechatham
I’m glad to hear the wording “regardless of whether or not the institution becomes coeducational”. Which shows that it’s still an open decision. Many of us alumnae have been feeling as if this was not the case. I encourage everyone (faculty, students, and alumnae) to voice their concerns and offer up their solutions to this issue of enrollment. Do you value the all-women’s environment at Chatham? What other women’s institutions are out there and successfully protecting their all-women’s environment, while flourishing in enrollment and making it work financially?
I disagree with the President’s assessment that it’s a small institution that makes the sole difference in the environment. Yes, it does for a big portion of it, but the all-women’s aspect is also a very powerful reason Chatham is a great place to learn as a woman (kind of like a two-headed Hydra). Our all-women environment is also a way to market ourselves against all of the other small liberal arts institutions in our region (think Carlow). I just think it might be good to explore all the options before making such a drastic change in the identity of the school for women. We should be given the time to explore other solutions, especially if we are not in dire financial straights as the Board was quick to emphasize.