In my other class this semester, I am writing about issues facing women’s colleges in the United States. As I was searching for current events last weekend I ran across a jaw-dropping article in The Chronicle that discussed the policy regarding transgender students at an all women’s school touted to be Virginia’s first chartered women’s college. The rule states, "If a degree-seeking undergraduate student initiates sex reassignment from female to male (as defined by the university below) at any point during her time at Hollins, she will not be permitted to continue attending Hollins beyond the conclusion of the term in which sex reassignment is initiated, and under no circumstances will such student be allowed to graduate from Hollins.”
A transgender policy specialist from Western New England University School of Law believes that expulsion is a punitive response to a student’s decision to make a personal medical decision to begin sex realignment. Although the article does not specify if transitioning students are actually expelled or simply compelled to leave Hollins, I agree that this policy appears to raise questions regarding personal (human) rights versus organizations’ rights. Specifically, is it appropriate for a private institution to bar students who no longer identify as members of their population of focus? The three actions that will lead to a student’s removal from Hollins include:
1. When a student “begins hormone therapy with the intent to transform from female to male,
2. undergoes any surgical process (procedure) to transform from female to male, or
3. changes her name legally with the intent of identifying herself as a man."
One key point that strikes me as legally questionable is that the school’s policy requires the departure of students who have initiated gender-reassignment transition (by any of the methods listed above) but are not yet legally considered to be male by the Commonwealth of Virginia, at least with regards to the ability to obtain a new driver’s license with the new gender stated on it.
As I wrote in a previous comment regarding transgender issues and NCAA athletes, the decision regarding when and if to transition must be one of the most significant decisions a person has to make. It seems to me that women’s colleges focus on encouraging women to follow their personal and career aspirations. They are places where women do not have to conform to the traditional paradigms of society. Apparently, this supportive environment ends when a student strays too far from the actual paradigm of socially-constructed gender.
Before you accuse me of ranting, or completely missing the point, please understand that I do realize that private institutions have more freedoms than public institutions. I am also keenly aware that once a person begins the process of transitioning from female-to-male, he is no longer identifying as a woman. But there are a variety of reasons why forcing a student out of school seems wrong to me personally. Can anyone explain to me, beyond the simple reason that a man is not a woman, why a transitioning student should be removed from school?
The reasoning here is simple, and looking at it on multiple level simply complicates it. The school is an all girls school. If a person chooses to become a man, or is somewhere in the in-between stages, then as defined by the school, s/he is no longer a girl. The school seems to have set pretty clear guidelines that you have listed above. By beginning hormone treatment, undergoing surgery, or changing a name, then they simply become ineligible to attend the school. They university is in no way forcing that person out. If that person wishes to remain at this specific university, then they should wait until after graduation to mover forward with any treatment, surgery, or name change.
ReplyDeleteI too came across this article. Even if a student is in her last semester of study when she decides to being the process of gender reassingment they will not receive a degree. I do see the point that this is a private all girls school. Clearly making this type of decision is very difficult. If a student is able to make this choice in what she sees as a supportive safe environment, then the school should continue to provide this support. As practitioners we must all do what is best for the student.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that the decision to transition from one sex to the other is profound and the institution's policy seems punitive. I also suspect that the professional staff at Hollins have thought this through within the context of institutional policy, history, and tradition. From my perspective, there maybe 3 reasons/justifications for their decision. 1) It is possible that institutional benefactors have made conditions on their gifts specifically addressing the issue of the institution graduating males. Colorado College received a large gift many decades ago that came with several conditions, one of which was that a particular residence hall would remain all-female. The original benefactor passed away many years ago but the conditions remain intact. It is possible Hollin's has similar gift constraints. 2) Hollins may recognize that is can not be all things to all students...it has to prioritize how it will direct its limited resources. Instead of requiring its student affairs staff to focus a significant amount of its energy and resources on a single individual, the leadership may have decided that it was better to have individuals undergoing the transition from one sex to the other do so elsewhere. That may sound terrible, but in fact student affairs professionals can not (and should not) do what is best for the individual if it not in the best interest of the student body. 3) What about a male who is deciding to transition to female...at what point could he apply and be admitted? After he has made his decision? After he has changed his name? After beginning hormone therapy? After surgery? Each of these are plausible explanations, although I have no idea if any is accurate. An additional explanation is that the Hollin’s Board of Trustees believes that this is a matter of principle. From their perspective, it maybe that Hollins is an all-women institution and they have an obligation to ensure that it remains that way. After all, the entire student body applied and enrolled to Hollins under the belief that this was an all-female institution. Would it not be unfair to them to change this defining institutional characteristic?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. There is a part of me that reads this blog and thinks that they cannot kick out a student because of a decision to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Another part of me understands the reasoning: this is an all-female college and a female who transitions to a man is no longer a female so they no longer meet the criteria to attend the university. With both sides verbalized, Hollin's approach does seem punitive. I do not know the entire story but to me the undertone does not seem to be focused on the change in gender at an all-female college rather sending a message based on prejudice. I cannot prove this but I think they walk a fine line when making this decision and how they approach this decision.
ReplyDeletePolicy issues related to transgender issues are something that always catch my attention because they many times blur (an already blurry) line between sex and gender. Your title, "When is a Man, a Man?" is truly appropriate in this case. It is interesting to me when and how we choose to weight biological expression of sex and primary, and when we choose to weight the physical expression as primary. If one compares the NCAA's approach to Hollin's I think this becomes more clearly muddles. It sort of extends the argument of what is sex vs. what is gender if you think about it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these types of concerns are going to become more common as an increasing number of people make the decision to transition. Many of our campuses are looking at how we can be better prepared for these students in terms of everything from class rosters, to student housing, to gender neutral bathrooms.
This has also been something that has touched other organizations:
http://campusprogress.org/articles/girl_scouts_of_colorado_officially_welcomes_transgender_girls/
I am going to disagree with the ruling by Hollins being "punitive" - or at least there was care given to the wording of the ruling to address this concern. The language used is not that of punitive action - merely what is and is not permissible. For Hollins, it is not permissible for them to allow the student to continue. They do not say the student will be "subject to expelation" or anything of the like.
ReplyDeleteOne intersting comment you made, Robyn, was that private institutions have more flexibility than public ones...this I think is not exactly the case. I think they both have similar numbers of limitations on how they set policy but those limits come from very different authorities. I think if we were to compile a list of "thou shalt nots" for each the list would be probably just as long - though the edicts would be different. This would, I think be an interesting subject to research because conclusions on the matter would be very reflective of ideological differences between the two.....hmmmm....where's that list I'm making of "topics to research".....