How Space and Gender Collided in 1960s and 1970s

By Olivia Johnson

Similar to other colleges and universities across the U.S., Centre College began with higher class elites accessing an education that further reiterated social and economic disparities. However, as the expansion of education increased, women began to enter secondary education. Centre slowly incorporated a separate women’s college in the early 20th century and later integrated women onto the main campus in the 1960s, although women were still expected to be refined to their own sphere. As described by Betsy Wilt, class of 1965:

It was Centre College, it was co-ed and we were, we were merged with Centre. But it had the feeling of a woman's college. We all lived together with women and the women all lived together the whole four years...This was you know, this was your life. This was here, and even though I was thirty-five miles from home, I could have been 930 miles from home, because I did not go back and forth.^[1]

Despite the progress that the college has made, this historical construction of Centre has a lasting impact, one that has clung to the women who have graduated in years past to the present day. Throughout my own personal undergraduate experience at Centre, I have engaged with the gendered dynamics that have come with participating in male centered environments. Throughout this oral history initiative for women’s history, I began to wonder how much of these environments impacted women throughout the years, especially as women’s perspectives are largely overlooked. Through the access of Centre archives and oral interviews, I noticed a pattern. Though normalized through social structures of the mid-20th century, women at Centre College faced extensive regulation from the college pertaining to their bodies and the spaces in which they participated in, propelling a shared movement that centralized around women and their experiences on campus.

After the women’s college integrated with the main campus at Centre, forces of regulation became a component to how women were to interact, function, dress, act, and more, all of which redefined how women were perceived with public spaces of the male-dominated campus. As part of the integrative processing, establishment of such rules were implemented through the HandyBook, published in 1964 by the Women’s Student Government Association.^[2] Social conduct was highly prioritized throughout the HandyBook, even to the extent of expressing that “each woman is responsible for her own and for all women’s actions in upholding the rules.^[3] Persistently, women are instructed to “preserve her own and other’s personal integrity”.^[4] This message underlines that the women on campus were expected to put on a performative act, one that was to be observed and critiqued from the eyes of the administration, staff, and fellow students. The tone highlighted that women were monitored for not only their academic standing, but also for their social interactions. The emphasis on integrity is reinforced through the reporting process, which had encouraged women to report themselves and others to the student judiciary board. Although not explicitly stated, women were expected to play an active participating role in how the campus culture was curated, additionally setting the standards for personal and academic interactions.

As described in the HandyBook, the environment of dormitory life was another way in which women were to be regulated on campus. As part of the gendered dynamics on campus, men and women had separated dormitories on opposite ends of the campus, with women being in dorms off of Main Street while men resided in dorms off of South Beatty Avenue. The physical separation demonstrated the capacity of Centre’s influence on the interactions of men and women, especially in terms of the conditions that were placed on women while they resided on campus. For example, absences from the residential buildings and overnight stays off campus were set with rules that determined how often one could miss signing into the dorms, how frequently these absences would be allowed, and with whom the woman was allowed to have absences with. Each woman was expected to abide by these rules, although there was some leniency for upper class women.^[5] However, women alumni revealed that men were not held to these same standards for campus living.^[6] Instead, men appeared to have little regulations and had more agency over the spaces they were able to participate in. While women were unable to go into men’s dormitories, men were able to go into the lobbies of women’s dorms, as in the case for Peggy Carthrae, class of 1966: “Yes, we had a dorm... every dorm had a dorm mother. And she sat right there at the front door, her little office was close to the front door. So, she knew who came in and went out and so on. And boys could come into the lobby, and you had to go down and meet your fellow for the date or whatever. They could not come, even come up on the floors. You had to meet them in the lobby.”^[7]

Through these gendered differences in residential life, the overshadow of men and women’s roles becomes conflated. Despite the fact that these women were in a higher educational environment, the types of constrictions were more than likely overlooked due to the gender roles of the time and the attachment of safety with rules.

The physical presence of women on the newly integrated campus posed differentiation in the appearance of women and their attire. The HandyBook depicts how women are expected to be “adequately dressed” and require for women to maintain a particular etiquette.^[8] Despite residential halls being a space for privacy and separation from the public and male spheres, Centre had placed expectations on women to perform, as so related in the previous statements of upholding integrity for one’s self and others. Women’s bodies also faced dress codes outside of these conditions as well. Dresses, skirts, blouses, and sweaters were all part of the required attire, especially during events such as dinner.

Wearing formal clothing became standard for occasions such as dinner and being “well groomed”^[9] placed an even greater emphasis on the adorned beauty women were held to. Betsy Wilt had described:

Yes, yes. You could be cited. Well, it was a women’s rule. You could, you were cited, you could be cited, if you were not properly dressed. There was a women's judiciary. And I can't remember anyone violating, you know, it’s just what you did. If you go out, maybe going to play tennis, which not many people did, but you, to the tennis court, you wore a trench coat, raincoat over your tennis outfit, or whatever you had on. And the men dressed for, well, dressed for dinner some, also. There may have been one time that they did not. When Cowan was built, now after we moved to the campus for a few months, we ate on a cafeteria style and McReynolds Hall. And I remember that that experience of the dining was not nice. I thought behavior was wore. Just the whole atmosphere was not as nice it has been. And even after we moved to the campus and we, Cowan was built, we still had seated meals, and you dressed, you dressed for those seated meals. So a different era; bygone, bypass era. It has, it had some good paths, points, and it had some bad points, you know?^[10]

Peggy Carthrae reiterated this with:

You had to wear either skirts or dresses everywhere. On campus or off campus. Of course, if you’re in your dorm, you can wear slacks or shorts, and if you’re in the dorm, but when you’re going to classes or if you’re out in town, you wear a dress or skirt and blouse. If you’re going to the lake and want to wear a bathing suit, that’s okay, but you had to wear a long trench coat over the bathing suit [laughter] until you got in the car. And yeah, they were pretty strict about dresses. You could not wear shorts...to even the public places on campus. If you went to the Hangout down in the basement of Sutcliffe, you could wear shorts if you didn’t stay there too long. You could just stay a few minutes if you wore shorts there. Oh, it’s just kind of strange. But anyhow, yeah, we have pretty strict rules.^[11]

The use of citations for the ever so adorned female body insinuates a pressure onto women that her beauty and appearance of being “well groomed” is more highly prized than her abilities to maintain a presence within the Centre community and campus. This questions the intentionality behind the lengths and degrees of regulations set for the women on campus.

In terms of the social life on Centre’s campus, social relationships that women had were oftentimes monitored and were perceived as spectacles for the surrounding peers. While women participated in the dating scene, women were made to sign out for dates and to make their interactions outside of the college made known.^[12] Outside of the dating scene had similar confinements. Sororities were not incorporated onto campus until the early 1980s, which heavily defined the type of interactions women could have and with whom. Dances were available to students under the gaze of staff members and fraternities had the means to bring parties close to campus. Peggy Carthrae had initially described that the women’s dormitories had become the sense of closure that substituted for sororities.^[13] Unless otherwise organized independently by the women themselves, much of the campus culture outside of the classroom focused on the fraternities. Dr. Angela Lipsitz, class of 1978, had referenced how the previously male-dominated atmosphere of Centre College granted more leeway for the men enrolled.^[14] In fact, such behaviors from men mirrored the “chauvinistic behavior”, referenced by Sharon Morisi who graduated in 1974, apparent in the American culture of the mid-20th century.^[15] With men being a centralized aspect to campus life, this provides comprehensive understanding why the campus had extensive regulations of the bodies of women. The basis for women’s social life revolved around the interpretations of the male gaze.

From the outside looking in, one can admire the social progress that women have encountered at Centre College, however, the oral history compilation demonstrates that women in the previous decades have faced exhaustive regulation in their public and personal lives, their private spaces, and their bodies. Spaces that women participated in were oftentimes exclusive to women, cultivating a campus culture that revolved around their experiences. Despite the environment of such separated gendered experiences of the 20th century, alumnae at Centre took part in curating where we are today, a campus where memories are continuously being made.

Footnotes

[1] Betsy Wilt, interviewed by Natalie Warren, February 25, 2021, Centre Archives

[2] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook,” Centre Archives.

[3] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook.” Centre Archives, p. 7

[4] Ibidem

[5] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook.” Centre Archives, p. 12

[6] Betsy Wilt, Interviewed by Natalie Warren, February 25, 2021, Centre Archives

[7] Peggy Carthrae, Interviewed by Aspen Waldron, March 4, 2021, Centre Archives.

[8] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook.” Centre Archives, p. 14

[9] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook.” Centre Archives, p.24

[10] Betsy Wilt, Interviewed by Natalie Warren, February 25, 2021, Centre Archives

[11] Peggy Carthrae, Interviewed by Aspen Waldren, March 4, 2021, Centre Archives

[12] Lory Emory, “The Official Women’s HandyBook.” Centre Archives, p.16

[13] Peggy Carthrae, Interviewed by Aspen Waldren, March 4, 2021, Centre Archives

[14] Angela Lipsitz, Interviewed by Amber Edwards, February 27, 2021, Centre Archives

[15] Sharon Morisi, Interviewed by Caroline Lancaster, March 15, 2021, Centre Archives

Bibliography

Angela Lipsitz, interviewed by Amber Edwards, February 27, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.

Betsy Wilt, interviewed by Natalie Warren, February 25, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.

Lory Emory, editor, “The Official Women's Handybook: How to Play Ball at Centre College: Girls' Rules,” Centre College Digital Archives, accessed May 16, 2021, https://centre.omeka.net/items/show/1399.

Peggy Carthrae, interviewed by Aspen Waldron, March 4, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.

Sharon Morisi, interview by Caroline Lancaster, March 15, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.