Ahem. As a Wellesley alum, I have to disagree with Oregon2016, and in fact have found her response overblown from the start. If I were TatinG or Sylvan I would have been furious at her over-the-top accusation of “mean spiritedness.” I think I understand what she is reacting to, but it has not been present in this thread IMHO.
Wellesley women are not cowering on their campus, afraid to engage with men. Yes, they live in an environment where their education is not and never has been an afterthought, and it is the MALE exchange students who are (or at least were in the 70s)–with an extra large scoop of irony–called “coeds.”
I think that Wellesley women have proven that they are fully capable of engaging in public life toe-to-toe with men. How much of that is that a certain part of their lives was in an environment where no one was worrying about whether “the boys would like them” if they spoke forcefully in class, or out of it? Or ran for office? How much was that large numbers of that sort of young women self-selected to go there in the first place, and then had their aspirations reinforced by an environment that actively believed in and supported women’s potential?
And people who went to coed schools, please spare me the protestations that they were equally supportive. I’ve been to both. There is a difference, believe me. Or at least there was in the 70s/80s.
Re the student lounge: I like @Hanna 's proposal very much. It honors a tradition and puts unspoken expectations on behavior. And if MSU has a tremendous problem finding places for people to study undisturbed, maybe they should open some MYOB study lounges where socializing was strongly frowned upon.