Becca Madsen, Bridget Foley, Melissa Uç, Ella Lefkowicz
A natural part in the life cycle of colleges is the rise and fall of various traditions, groups, and mindsets. At Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, the best example of this phenomenon can be found in the Women’s League. The Carleton Women’s League was an all-female organization, active from the 1930s-70s. They enforced curfew, dress code, and other behavioral rules created by the college and imposed on women and built the Women’s League Cabin, located in the campus’s Arboretum. The Women’s League (WL) allowed female students to find solidarity in each other during a time of strict gendered regulations, the cabin acting as an additional escape valve from the campus’s patriarchy. The League finally disbanded in protest over their lack of influence on curfew rules and permanently disappeared after the dorms became co-ed in the 1970s.
In our three interviews with Women’s League alums, we heard first-hand accounts of the organization from the women in charge and the general body. Listen to two of the interviews, put into conversation with each other as the women tell us about their honest opinions of the Dean of Women, burning League documents, and more.
The Women’s League Bureaucracy
The League possessed a similar organizational style to a modern-day student government, possessing the basic executive roles of president, vice president, and representatives. However, the League’s chain of command also included a judicial and legislative branch directly connected to the enforcement duties the League performed–these were the Women’s League officers. All women were automatically members of the League upon entrance into Carleton with additional elected leadership positions including a President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, referred to as the “Officers”. At the time, women and men lived on separate sides of campus, women on the East Side and men living on the West side. This allowed for easy representations of all women on campus via a Floor-based representative system. Each floor elected one resident to be their voice at the Women’s League meetings and to report back to them what was discussed at these meetings.
Illustration of the WL’s chain of command as seen in one of the “Information Pleas”
The judicial branch (known as the Women’s League Court or Women’s Court) was made up of the officers, house presidents as well as a chairman. This court dealt mainly with curfew infractions, doling up punishments such as being “campused” where the student was not allowed to go off campus, restrained to their dorm, dining hall, and classes. The legislative branch, or “Council,” was composed of the Officers, Cabinet, House Presidents as well as the Floor/Section Presidents. This group met with the Dean to discuss and vote on various issues concerning the women. Up until the late 1970s, there were 3 deans at Carleton, a dean of the college, a dean of men, and a dean of women. The Dean of Women attended these league meetings and wielded veto power over decisions made. During interviews with various alumni of the League, it became clear that while the League could vote and voice their opinions, the final decision on future policies was ultimately in the hands of the Dean of Women, a responsibility she often took advantage of. The Women’s League was expected to claim responsibility (and blame) for the rules put forth by the College even though their voice in these meetings was merely symbolic.
The Cabinet was a special committee that mainly faced the public, involving itself in informational and social pursuits. They were charged with the creation and management of special events such as socials, dances, and the Cabin. There was also a specific focus on freshman activities such as Big ‘n Little Sister, various freshman traditions such as Welcome Week, as well as a handbook, ‘Information Pleas,’ that was written and distributed by the League to the incoming class illustrating the ins and outs of freshmen rules and culture. The Cabinet was also attached to publicity for the League, likely working to get the word out about meetings of the League as well as other ways for women on campus to get involved.
Less connected to the League and more connected to residential life at Carleton was the House Council. This group included House Presidents, Floor Presidents, Social Chairman, House Officers, and the Resident Head, all elected by the respective groups of women they represented. Members of this subgroup attended council meetings likely to represent their floor’s or house’s interests.
Image of campus with men’s (Burton, Davis, Sevy) and women’s (Gridley, Evans, Nourse) dorms visible
Despite having a complex bureaucracy, the Women’s League held a limited amount of power. For the many meticulously thought-out levels of officials and elections that took place, the League was still frustratingly at the mercy of the Deans and ultimately the college as a whole. They could only ‘suggest’, not implement changes they wanted, forcing them into a corner where they mainly acted as a moral policing group and events coordinator. This created tension between the Women’s League and the college and ultimately ended in the demise of the League.
Responsibilities of the Women’s League
“We were doing the basic ginger rogers standing backward in high heels for the college at that time”
– Sheila Cumberworth ‘69
In the 1970s, when, the above quoted, Sheila Cumberworth was a member of the Women’s League, she found the League to be lacking a true purpose or noble goal, instead acting as a purely ornamental women’s club. During Sheila’s time at Carleton, the Women’s League indeed held two main purposes; enforcing restrictive gender-based curfew and behavioral rules (with little input on what these regulations were) and hosting events for the College such as the Student-Faculty Tea. Members of the League would volunteer to pour tea or host Freshman Week, the equivalent of present-day Carleton’s SAO (Student Activities Organization). However, that social aspect wasn’t where the main tension of the Women’s League lay. The League was tasked with documenting, judging, and punishing all infractions on curfew hours. These were hours that were only mandated for female students, with the specific hours when women were required back in their dorms varying by grade level and did not garner popular support within the League. This created tension on the campus as female students were imposing school rules upon their peers while simultaneously not being treated as an authority by the college, resulting in them having no say in the rules they were required to enforce.
Female students being greeted, Freshman Week, 1960/61
Both men’s and women’s dorms had an RA-like entity that carried out college regulations in lieu of an actual guard or security. Despite not having any curfew rules to impose, the men’s dorms employed and paid “Proctors” to, as one alumna recalled, “break up fights” on their floors, of which there were many. On the other side of campus, were the female “Councilors”, unpaid members of the Women’s League. These women checked people in and out of the buildings, taking note of those who broke curfew. The curfew rules for women were incredibly strict, requiring the woman to write where she was going, with whom, for how long, and when she would return in addition to a specific, strict time of night when the women would all be required to be back in the hall. Any travel off campus had to be explicitly signed off on by a parent of the student. Additionally, male students were only allowed in the halls during specific hours of the day. Any failure to comply with these rules would result in being written up and meeting with the Women’s Court.
“Because of women’s hours, there was a women’s court, right? Oh, yes, run by the Women’s League. Because who else to enforce the rules than classmates”
-Janet Gendler ‘70
Infractions would be dealt with by the Women’s Court, composed of the student’s peers. Essentially, in this system, the women were caged by rules they could not change and penalized by each other if they broke them.
The Women’s League in Context
Much of the controversy surrounding the Women’s League around the time of disbandment reflected national debates surrounding women’s rights. The Women’s Liberation Movement began to establish itself in the Midwest with the formation of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union in 1969. As a result, many women began to call restrictive gender norms into question. Carleton was not immune to this agitation demanding gender equality. At Carleton, these debates surrounded the many restrictions placed upon and enforced by female students. In addition to the protests against curfew hours, female students took notice of the taboos surrounding sex and an utter lack of female reproductive healthcare accessible to students. Interviewee Sheila Cumberworth ‘69 recalls how “nobody in Northfield, at least, would sell an unmarried woman who is under 21 birth control,” with the men also being barred from purchasing these contraceptives. During the winter of the Evan’s Succession in 1969, the owner of Tiny’s Smoke Shop was arrested for selling contraceptives to men under the age of 21.
While options to practice safe sex were limited, women who became pregnant at Carleton had no say in their academic future, forced to abruptly end their time at Carleton. Since both sexual relations and marriage were forbidden on campus, any female student who was pregnant was immediately expelled while the father faced no consequences. However, female students at the time took measures to protect one another from these life-altering penalties. Cumberworth recounts that all female counselors (RA’s) kept a secret list of doctors who would give birth control to unmarried women under 21 and proudly shares that she “made very good use of it” during her time as a counselor. The mandates for female students placed upon women and the subsequent response of peer support in which the phrase, ‘women support women’ rings true, parallels the struggles and female comradery of the early Women’s Liberation Movement at the time.
However, a drastic change in campus culture occurred in January of 1969 with the establishment of Planned Parenthood in the Twin Cities. Although there had been reproductive health centers in the past, they were only available to people in the metropolitan area. The support of a nationwide movement required the organization to be “responsible for activities outside the Twin Cities” and serve unmarried women (Klaassen, 2006). For Carleton women, this was an opportunity for the assurance they had long been denied by the college: their private lives would not have an effect on their academic and professional futures.
“It was really remarkable because you could get to Planned Parenthood by taking the bus into the cities. You didn’t have to tell anybody, and suddenly a whole lot of personal behavior was not permitted, but was safe”
– Sheila Cumberworth ‘69
Cumberworth also describes the stark change in campus culture from “this sort of like convent style Catholic girls who locked them up at night and kept the boys away to ‘y’all have at it.’”
Although the disbandment of the Women’s League was not due to this singular issue, there is a correlation between the national recognition of women’s rights, like that afforded by Planned Parenthood, and the dissolving need for gender-based advocacy groups on campus. The personal testimonies we heard recounting the importance of Planned Parenthood for female students provide a direct link between Carleton’s history of gender normative oppression and the national context it occurred in. Together, these resources provide a localized example of the impact of the expansion of reproductive rights on past students and how these have shaped the college experience of current college students.
Women’s League: Specific Events
The rising tension between the traditional rules of the Women’s League and the liberalization of gender norms around the country led to disagreements between Women’s League members and Carleton administration. Here, we dive into the specific examples of distaste for the rules, as well as other events that led to the fall of the Women’s League and the end of students enforcing rules that they did not believe in. The following are specific examples of how the paternalistic nature of the college at the time affected the attitudes of the Women’s League, and the individual women involved.
Beginning in the early years of the college, continuing into the late 1960s, Carleton practiced “In Loco Parentis,” or “in the place of a parent.” The idea was to ease the minds of parents by enforcing strict rules and discipline for students on campus, employing a paternal role. Towards the end of the Women’s League, these rules were only enforced on the female students by other female students or ‘counselors’.
Circa 1966, female students were subjected to a curfew ranging from 10 pm for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors to 11:15 pm for seniors. If a female student was late, the doors to the dorm may be locked and she would need to meet with her counselor and the Dean of Women. Additionally, if a female student wanted to leave campus, she would need to gain permission from both her parents and the college, as well as sign out and sign back into the dorm. The people responsible for reporting this misconduct were the peers of the female student–their fellow Women’s League members.
Details of curfew hours for female students circa 1966.
“It was the Dean of Women who said that there’s no reason, there’s no excuse to have to continue a conversation after 2 am, that it can be done by and then, or continue the next day. And I was sort of, ‘What world are you in?’ Because it’s me and it’s my time, you know, she was in a different world.”
–Janet Gendler ‘70.
As tensions rose surrounding the issue of curfew hours, the members of the Women’s League began an outcry for the rules to change. Despite this, in 1967, the Dean of Women, Jean Philips, decided that the curfew rules would remain. In response to the continuation of “in loco parentis” despite the demands and discontent of the female student body, all of the counselors or RAs for women resigned.
“The Women’s League was so incensed that they all resigned. Every single one of them resigned.”
–Sheila Cumberworth ‘69
A Carletonian issue from 1967 reported that house presidents resigned due to the loss of a vote that would have allowed for the Women’s League to begin to redefine its role. If successful, this vote, “would have allowed the Women’s League to begin enforcing only those rules approved by a majority of women students.” In other words, women students’ autonomy was being voted against. Some women on campus chose to even take it a step further in protest of curfew hours; the women living in Evans dormitory chose to secede from the college.
“We hung a bed sheet out the window basically saying, ‘Evans has seceded.’”
–Sheila Cumberworth ‘69
These actions of protest by the female student body eventually resulted in a plan proposed by the Dean of Women to slowly get rid of the arcane rules for female students and would later result in the disbandment of the Women’s League as their role as enforcers disappeared alongside these rules. The student protest by Carleton’s Women’s League demonstrated an effort to get the college and its administration to mirror the establishment of a more progressive culture seen throughout the rest of the country at the time. These acts of defiance were no doubt what allowed women to gain such independence and decrease how paternalistic the school was.
The Demise of the Women’s League
By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Women’s League was participating in a ‘Ginger Rogers dance,’ backward, in high heels for the college. At the beginning of every academic year, they created a booklet of tips and rules for the freshmen class and every Friday, they poured coffee and served cookies at the student-faculty teas. By 1968, these East Side traditions seemed to be the extent of the Women’s League role at Carleton, argued Sheila Cumberworth ‘69. In her candidacy for Women’s League President, Cumberworth states that “There is rather a lack of issue at present” when reflecting upon the League’s impact on campus. However, an important and all-too-present task for the Women’s League remained: rule enforcement. While curfew for women on campus had been extended and the regulations of Open House had changed, women who broke these gendered rules still found themselves in front of a jury of their peers, fellow female students enlisted to enforce these arcane regulations. Women’s League Representatives and Council continued being asked to enforce rules they didn’t create, many of which they disagreed with, on their hallmates and friends.
After years of protest by both Carleton’s Women’s and Men’s League, the college revised its previously conservative perspective and integrated men’s and women’s dorms into co-ed dorms on February 14th, 1970 (on Valentine’s Day). From our interviews with Women’s League alums, this shift in spirit seemed largely to come from Dean Jean Phillips. Referred to as “Mean Dean Jean” by the students, Phillips was known to be a rigid rule-follower unwilling to consider the opinions of the students on campus. However, after years of rapidly and constantly changing rules, she seemed to understand and sympathize with the pleas of the female students. With co-ed dorms, there seemed to be neither a desire nor ability to enforce lingering curfews and open-hour rules. Without the rules needing to be enforced by the League’s officers, there was no longer a need for the officers themselves.
Without this task of enforcement, the Women’s League still had a role on campus as the tea pourers and freshmen year handbook writers. However, for the many women on campus with hopes to be a part of the rising feminist attitude in which women planned to step away from the housewife narrative and into the corporate world, these responsibilities for the League seemed unsatisfactory. Additionally, as League representatives were elected by floor, with the dissolution of gendered dorms, there was no way to elect the representative for the next year. Soon after the integration of dorms, the Men’s League, referred to as a ‘smoking club’ by women on campus, decided to disband, encouraging the Women’s League to follow suit. The women, a more committee-focused league than their brother league, met to discuss the end of the Women’s League and in the Spring of 1970, decided not to re-elect representatives, ending the 50-year-old organization.
While the disbandment of the Women’s League beckoned in a time in which the administration stopped policing women with the arcane restrictions in place since the formation of the college, it also signified the loss of a communal, supportive space for women. Janet Gendler, the last acting president of the Women’s League, recalls that amid the frustration with the College over rules and curfews, the League was always a treasured space on campus up until its very end. Sheila Cumberworth reminisces, “I think we’ve lost that safe space where we could go and let our hair down.”
Discussion of Methods and Conclusions
In order to fully understand the cultural attitudes on campus towards the Women’s League, our group believed that a combination of archival documents and oral histories would benefit our research. By having the opportunity to speak with Carleton alumni about their experience, we were able to both achieve a better understanding of the struggles between college administrators and student representatives, as well as forge a connection with a different generation of Carleton students. We are incredibly grateful to our interviewees Janet Gendler, Sheila Cumberworth, and Janet Hunter for allowing us to tell a more complete story of the Women’s League. Their testimonies truly provided us with integral information to both complete our assignment and reflect on how their work has guaranteed generations of Carls the right to privacy and equity with our peers.
We would also like to discuss some areas for further research. Since our project was completed in a short 10-week period, we chose to focus on the later years of the Women’s League and only were able to interview women with some sort of administrative power in the League. In future research, we believe that it would be beneficial to include other perspectives such as students of color, members of the Men’s League, or those who were punished by the Women’s League for some sort of infraction.
Finally, our research has raised some questions about spaces for women and non-men at Carleton. While the integration of genders helped female students gain fundamental rights on campus, many of our interviewees also account for how something was lost.
Although Carleton has gained multiple academic support groups for non-men (GeMMs, Women in STEM, etc.) throughout the years, there is a lack of communal space for non-men with different backgrounds to interact like the Women’s League Cabin and women’s dorms. While it seems the positive impact of gender integration was much larger than this loss, this could call into question whether or not spaces that cater to non-men on campus would be beneficial. Especially during a period where reproductive rights are being called into question, safe spaces for students to support each other may once again be necessary for those who feel affected.
While it has been inactive for almost 55 years now, the impact of the Women’s League has undoubtedly created a lasting impact on the cultural identity of Carleton College. In line with the Women’s Liberation Movement of the late 1960s, the leaders of this organization fought administrative guidelines against their personal lives and freedoms that remain to this day. The integration of dorms, fair wages for student employees, and lack of restrictions on social activities are essential to Carleton’s presence as an inclusive and truly liberal, liberal arts college. These rights that current students simply recognize as campus norms were not merely a product of the college’s administrations, but women our own age who advocated for their adulthood freedoms. Not only is it imperative that we continue to recognize the importance of the Women’s League, but consider how this part of Carleton’s past connects to our own futures.
Candidates for Women’s League board: 1968-69. Janet Gendler: Front row, leftmost.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Carleton College Archives. Enrollments Fall Term. 1867- 2011.
Cumberworth, Sheila. Personal Interview. 28 Oct. 2024.
Cumberworth, Sheila. Letter of Candidacy for Women’s League President. 1968. Carleton Archives. Collection 162, Box 1, Folder 1.
Donohue, Madeleine M. Letter of Appeal to Compliance Court. 11 Mar. 1969. Carleton College Archives. Collection 14, Folder 6.
Golding, Susan. Women’s League Handbook. 1964-1965. Carleton College Archives. Collection PB311, Item 30.
Gould Library Archive, Carleton College: Item: The Carletonian [146364]. February 17, 1967. Retrieved from https://archive.carleton.edu/Detail/collections/146364
Gould Library Archive, Carleton College: Item: Evans Hall, viewed from the northwest [70003]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2024, from https://archive.carleton.edu/Detail/collections/70003
Gendler, Jan. Letter of Candidacy for Women’s League President. 1967. Carleton Archives. Collection 162, Box 1, Folder 1.
Gendler, Jan. Personal Interview. 26 Oct. 2024.
Gendler, Jan. Student Activities Office Report of the Women’s League from 1968-69. May 27th, 1969. Carleton Archives, Collection 162, Series 3: Box 1.
Hunter, Janet. Personal interview. 21 Oct. 2024 Hunter, Janet. Women’s League Council Minutes. 31 Jan. 1968. Carleton College Archives. Collection 162, Box 1, Folder 6.
Klaassen, Dave. “Planned Parenthood of Minnesota Records.” Collection: Planned Parenthood of Minnesota Records | University of Minnesota Archival Collections Guides, The University of Minnesota: Social Welfare History Archives, 2006, archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/11/resources/742.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Chain of Women’s League leadership in Information Pleas for Women Students. 1941-1969. Carleton College Archives. Collection PB312, Box 1. Women’s League of Carleton College. Carleton College Student Organizations Fund
Payment Order For the Women’s League. May 2 1967. Carleton College Archives, Collection 162, Box 1, folder 2.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Information Pleas: A Handbook for Women Students, 1941-1969. Help!, 1964. Carleton College Archives. Collection PB312, Box 1.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Report of the President of the Women’s League, 1939-1940. Carleton College Archives. Collection PB312, Box 1.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Annual Summaries (Reports), 1936-1969. Carleton College Archives. Collection 162: Women’s League Collection, 1917-1969., Box 1.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Rules and Regulations circa 1966. Rules and Penalties. Carleton College Archives. Collection 126: Women’s League Collection, 1936-1969, Box 1, Folder 3, Document 1.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Rules and Regulations circa 1966. Recommended Procedure for Women’s Dormitories. Carleton College Archives. Collection 126: Women’s League Collection, 1936-1969, Box 1, Folder 3, Document 3.
Women’s League of Carleton College. Rules and Regulations circa 1966. Rules and Regulations: Edited by Penny Cope. Carleton College Archives. Collection 126: Women’s League Collection, 1936-1969, Box 1, Folder 3.