On the morning of Wednesday, April 23, Chatham alumnae and a few current students took to the intersection of 5th Avenue and Woodland Road to protest the vote that could turn Chatham College for Women into a coeducational undergraduate institution.
“Ideally, we’d like them to throw [the idea] away in the trash where it belongs,” said Sarah Ford, class of 2008.
Ford wants for current Chatham students to look at the Save Chatham website and Facebook page.
“I don’t want students to be apathetic,” she said. “There are other options other than going coed.”
The women wore the signature Chatham purple and held signs with phrases like, “Save Chatham for Women Forever,” “Rachel would weep,” and “Will work for single-gender Chatham College for Women.” The women cheered when their messages raised supportive horn-honks from passing drivers.
For one protester who wished to remain nameless, said the protest is essentially about “being truthful.”
“I’m here because I feel like the administration hasn’t disclosed enough information or answered the questions that have been posed,” she said.
The protest began with about eight protesters on Woodland Road in front of the Mellon Building. According to Ashley Bittner, a junior in Chatham’s Environmental Science program, the protesters were just arriving when Chatham police arrived and asked the protesters to move before police were forced to arrest them.
According to Bittner, police said alumnae and students were not allowed to have protest signs on private property and that they were allowed to practice free speech, just not on Chatham’s campus.
According to Chatham Police Chief Donald Aubrecht, Pennsylvania Law states that picketers must be off the property of the institution against which they are protesting. As a former Homestead police officer, he thinks back to strikes by the workers of Homestead Steel, all of which had to occur off of Homestead Steel Works’ property.
“You don’t ever want to disrupt the operations of a business or the school,” he said. “We always want to let [people] exercise their right to voice their opinion, but in an appropriate manner.”
Protesters were still going strong as of 11:30 am. They were even planning on staying long enough to have a candlelight vigil in support of Chatham’s single-sex education.
“I’m here because I love Chatham College for Women,” said Maureen Sampson, class of 2009. “Single-sex education is not appropriate for everyone, but for some it changes lives, and I’m one of those women.”
Thank you for the coverage, Communique reporters! #savechatham
Dear Communique’,
Thank you for your posting, and demonstrating that Freedom of the Press may still exist at CCW.
I write from my home in suburban Philadelphia, but am with you in spirit as WE demonstrate on 5th Ave – as we did in 1970 after Kent State.
I have recently been silenced since I am recovering from an illness that required hospitalization. However, I remain extremely proud of the Save Chatham work product – and fervently hope the Groups’ efforts will be rewarded with the requested 1 year delay in the BoT vote.
The Board Package you have compiled is well researched, reasoned, and conceived. I believe it gives pragmatic solutions to “situations” that have been many years in the making. I urge all who may read this post to invest the time in reading the Package, if you have not already done so.
Yours in solidarity and sisterhood,
Sandy Kuritzky, ’73
I hope you will continue to investigate and report on this issue. The Administration was ” hiding” postings this morning on the Chatham University FB page, aka censorship. These posts were asking to delay the coed vote. Throwing a handful of alums off campus sounds draconian or I should say, “Barrazonian”. Is this what life at Chatham is like now? Is your newspaper free to report or does the Admin. interfere with you as well? This is so against the spirit of inquiry and academic freedom. These are serious breaches. I have called EB and Bill C. and said so. The posts appear to be on now. Regardless of how the vote goes, Chatham may have a more serious problem with its leadership and its tactics, one that will have men and women turning up their noses at the chance to be educated at Chatham. Esther and her team need to be investigated and freedom of the press must prevail. Don’t be afraid to find the truth, do not be intimidated. All people are asking is for the vote to be delayed in order to have more information. What is all the hostility about? Smells like something is rotten on Woodland Road. Investigate.
Very well written, Dr. Melito – f/k/a Lucia of the Woodland Zoo! Maybe Dylan was wrong – and the “times” HAVEN’T changed…
Yours in spirit and solidarity,
Sandy Kuritzky, ’73
I would love to read some reporting about current students at CCW . How do they feel about the issue of coeducation? Why are the students so silent? Are they aware that their future may change cne May 1st? Where do they standi? Has Esther included them in this process?
Lucia,
Prior to my illness, I “heard” there was a subtle change in the Honor Code language; based upon the change, the administration may be able to deem any statement contrary to it as contrary to the University’s well-being. The statement could be “actionable” against the party(student) making the statement.
I will appreciate it if someone is able to cite both the “old” and “new” Honor Codes. Circumstances have not allowed me to independently verify the information received. Similarly, I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what I “heard”. My goal is to convey factual information enabling the intellectual discourse with the fervent hope the BoT will agree to defer the co-ed vote for a year.
Sandy Kuritzky, ’73