This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff.
Questions or comments should be directed to

                          CHAPTER THREE

                    LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE 
                      A SINGLE CURRICULUM 


Lewis and Clark College bases its assessment on the three questions
that summarized their program goals: How effectively do students
learn and apply gender analysis? What impact, if any has gender
studies had on the classroom and institutional climates at Lewis
and Clark ? And, what impact, if any, has gender studies had on the
personal growth of students and alumnae?

Since its founding as Albany Collegiate Institute in 1867, Lewis
and Clark College has been committed to an equal education for
women and men within a single curriculum. Martha Montague's
centennial history of Lewis and Clark includes a report on those
early days:

During the year 1869-1870, the student body numbered eighty-six:
forty-three women and forty-three men. Albany always received women
on equal terms with men, never keeping them separate in academic
work or making special rules for them, as in some neighboring
colleges. Both were "scholars" or students, and often the
scholastic records of the women were higher than those of the 
men. -2

Today, 125 years after its founding, Lewis and Clark, a private
liberal arts college located in Portland, Oregon, remains committed
to a single curriculum for the 1,850 women and men enrolled in the
College of Arts and Sciences. In 1990-91, 55 percent of these
undergraduates were women and 45 percent were men. Undergraduates
represented forty-five states and forty nations, and 12 percent of
these students were minorities.


In the early 1970s, Lewis and Clark offered some women's studies
courses mainly in literature and history, and, with the assistance
of faculty members, a number of students designed interdisciplinary
majors in women's studies. Instead of establishing a formal women's
studies program, however, the college sought to meet its historic
commitment to "balanced exploration of the perspectives,
traditions, and contributions of women and men" by integrating
scholarship by and about women across the curriculum and creating
an interdisciplinary minor that examined women and men in relation
to one another.

Progress in curriculum integration was spurred by an intensive
faculty development seminar on women's studies held in the summer
of 1981 and supported by a grant from the National Endowment for
the Humanities. Male and female faculty members, representing
fourteen academic disciplines, studied for a month with four
visiting scholars from history, psychology, anthropology, and
literature. Gender studies was approved as the first
interdisciplinary minor at Lewis and Clark by unanimous vote of the
College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee on February 20,
1985. A Gender Studies Program that spoke to all students--women
and men--and addressed the intersections of gender, race, class,
and culture was seen as central to the mission of the college.

The Gender Studies Program provides an interdisciplinary minor,
promotes ongoing efforts to integrate scholarship by and about
women and minorities across the curriculum, serves as a critical
element in the core curriculum, and sponsors an annual symposium.
The Gender Studies Symposium, begun in 1982, brings together Lewis
and Clark students and faculty members, scholars from other
institutions, and representatives from community organizations to
share scholarship and concerns. A unique feature of these symposia
is the full involvement of Lewis and Clark students.

                    WHAT IS GENDER STUDIES? 

Gender studies is an interdisciplinary field that examines the
biological, social, and cultural constructions of femininity and
masculinity, as well as the ways women and men locate themselves
within gender systems. Gender defines relationships among women,
among men, and between men and women. Interacting with factors such
as race, class, and culture, gender studies examines the
relationships between biological differences and social inequality,
explores the construction of sexual identity, and analyzes the
variations in gender systems that have occurred across cultures and
over time. It also illuminates the images of femininity and
masculinity that shape cultural representations and explores the
similarities and differences in women's and men's communication and
artistic expression. Finally, gender studies involves the political
and philosophical exploration of strategies for change that can
transform coercive and unequal gender systems and enhance both
individual choice and our common humanity.

The gender studies minor at Lewis and Clark consists of a minimum
of six courses (thirty quarter hours): four required courses and
two electives drawn from a list of over fifty approved electives
offered by eighteen departments. The four required courses include:
GS 231, "Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective" (formerly GS 210,
"The Social and Cultural Construction of Gender"); GS 300, "Gender
and Aesthetic Expression"; GS 310, "Sex Differences and Social
Inequality"; and GS 440, "Feminist Theory." GS 200, "Women and Men
in American Society," is an introductory course but is not required
for the minor.

The gender studies minor differs in several ways from Lewis and
Clark's ongoing efforts to integrate gender across the curriculum.
Integrating gender issues is not the same as focusing on them. A
gender-balanced course, for ex- ample, might include the
experiences, perspectives, and voices of women, as well as men,
without making the similarities and differences between them the
central question; the primary focus of a gender-balanced course
might be a historical or literary problem, of which gender is but
one dimension. Although there is heuristic value in approaching any
inquiry with the assumption that gender and culture matter, to be
aware of these dimensions of inquiry is not the same as undertaking
a systematic investigation of the differences that gender makes.

                         KEY QUESTIONS 

Participation in "The Courage to Question" has been timely for
Lewis and Clark. After six years of experience with a gender
studies minor and a decade of curriculum integration efforts and
annual Gender Studies symposia, we welcomed the opportunity to
pause and focus on student learning. Three key questions that
summarized our program goals (see page 78) and informed our study

* How effectively do our students learn and apply gender analysis? 

* What impact, if any, has gender studies had on the classroom and
institutional climates at Lewis and Clark? 

* What impact, if any, has gender studies had on the personal
growth of students and alumnae(i)?


Throughout the process of data collection, data analysis, and
writing this re- port, four of us--one student, one staff member,
and two faculty members/administrators--have worked collaboratively
as a team and brought different disciplinary perspectives to our
work (see note 1). For our study, we relied on three significant
data collections: questionnaires, student papers and projects, and
selected course syllabi. In addition, we relied on previously
collected materials, such as computer conversations, symposium
papers and programs, student journals and diaries, student honors
projects, and practica reports.


Anonymous questionnaires distributed to students, faculty members,
and alumnae(i) in 1990-91 provided both quantitative and
qualitative data about the Gender Studies Program, including
student learning, integration efforts, and personal growth. For
student questionnaires, we used random sampling, stratified by
distribution of majors. Respondents, whose ages ranged from
eighteen to forty-six, represented twenty-one named majors and
twenty minors. Faculty questionnaires were sent to all
undergraduate teaching faculty members; alumnae(i) questionnaires
were mailed to all alumnae(i) who had participated in the gender
symposia over the past five years and for whom we could obtain
mailing addresses. A total of 210 questionnaires were returned and
analyzed: 145 student questionnaires (41 percent males and 59
percent females), 41 faculty questionnaires, and 24 alumnae(i)
questionnaires. These questionnaires reflect an unusually high
retention rate of 48 percent for students and alumnae(i) and 46
percent for faculty members.

                      PAPERS AND PROJECTS 

To gain information about students' gender analysis (knowledge base
and learning skills), we collected and analyzed sets of papers and
projects from three gender studies classes (five sections). Where
possible, longitudinal materials, including journals, were used.
Papers and projects were collected from two courses required for
the gender studies minor and one elective gender studies course.

As a comparison with students' gender analysis in gender studies
classes and to gain information about curriculum integration of
gender issues, sets of student papers were collected and analyzed
from fall term 1991 core curriculum courses: "Basic Inquiry,"
"Critical Inquiry," and "Advanced Inquiry." For the "Basic Inquiry"
classes, longitudinal information was obtained through examination
of first and last portfolios written during the term. A scoring
sheet (see pages 80-81 ) was developed for knowledge base and
learning skills. All student work was scored independently by two
readers and by a third if there were disagreement. 47


To obtain more information about curriculum integration efforts, we
began with a list of more than one hundred courses generated by the
student questionnaires. We were interested in courses that were
neither required nor elective gender studies courses but that
students claimed incorporated a gender perspective. We then
selected twenty courses from the student-generated list, divided
proportionately among the three divisions of the College of Arts
and Sciences (humanities and fine arts, mathematics and natural
sciences, and social sciences) and between male and female
professors, and requested syllabi and course materials to assess
gender content.

As was the case for student papers and projects, all syllabi were
scored independently by two readers and by a third if there were
any disagreement between the first two readers. The evaluation
system used for curriculum integration was adapted from Mary Kay
Thompson Tetreault's "feminist phase theory.

                      PERSONAL GROWTH DATA 

Finally, to assess students' personal growth in the Gender Studies
Program, we turned to student and alumnae(i) questionnaires.
Qualitative analysis of questionnaire comments and narrative
statements complemented our quantitative analysis of questionnaires
and revealed a number of personal growth themes.


When asked on the questionnaire to rate their overall learning in
required gender studies courses on a scale of 1 to 5--with a 1
being poor and 5 being excellent--students rated their courses at
4.4, while alumnae(i) who had taken one or more required courses
rated their learning at 4.7. Of students who had taken required
gender studies courses (N=42), seven said these courses were the
most intellectually challenging courses they had taken. One
sophomore international affairs major wrote that the program is
"one of the most academic, theoretical, and demanding. Something
that is lacking in most departments."

To answer our first key question, we needed to determine what
knowledge and skills students were learning that enabled them to
analyze gender effectively. To confirm students' self-reporting, we
developed a system of coding for student portfolios, papers, and
journals. Our articulation of our knowledge 4~

While we recognize that feminism, and hence feminist teaching, is
ideological and even political, we also contend that it is no more
so than other so-called "objective" and "apolitical" teaching

base had to include the first five goals listed in the Gender
Studies Program Goals (see page 78). While knowledge about gender
is potentially limitless, we can articulate at least a provisional
structure of knowledge.

Feminist inquiry is at the core of knowledge in gender studies. We
do not see gender studies as a retreat from a commitment to
feminism either as a political or an intellectual movement. While
we recognize that feminism, and hence feminist teaching, is
ideological and even political, we also contend that it is no more
so than other so-called "objective" and "apolitical" teaching.
Indeed, it is the goal of feminist inquiry to expose the political
agendas that lurk behind inquiry in the sciences, social sciences,
arts, and humanities. Furthermore, since feminism has been an
intellectual, social, and political movement for almost two
centuries, it is a legitimate area of inquiry in and of itself.

Therefore, we want our students minimally to understand feminism
both historically and theoretically. This is a major content area,
the foundation of the knowledge base of gender studies that grounds
other areas of inquiry within the field. As one student, a senior
in "Feminist Theory," put it:

Women are not born inherently submissive, inferior objects. Society
teaches these roles. It is the goal of feminist theorists to bring
this fact of socially constructed roles into direct scrutiny, and
attempt to clarify their destructive force, eliminate them and thus
change the world.

                      KNOWLEDGE BASE PLOTS

[A] good course, like a novel, has a plot, or an underlying
framework which gives coherence to the more specific detail. -4

To make some sense of the boundless content of gender inquiry, we
had to construct a flexible scheme to give coherence to the
knowledge base of our Gender Studies Program. We were inspired by
the remarks above by Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy
Henley that the structure of knowledge resembles the narrative plot
of a good book. Following an idea suggested in a 1986 essay by
Paula Treichler, we defined eight basic "plots," or narratives,
which represent current intellectual activity in gender studies.S
We adapted Treichler's "plots" to create an underlying framework
for the knowledge base of gender studies. Those eight plots are:  

* The politics of sex/gender: Who benefits from a social and
political construction that subjugates women? What social and
political relations exist and have existed between men and women,
among women, and between women and other disempowered members of
society? How do the oppressions built into a given social structure
relate to economic, political, and sexual practices ? What kinds of
analyses and activism are needed to bring an end to the subjugation
of women? 

* Cultural images of sex/gender: How is gender represented in both
high and mass culture? How do words, images, and patterns of
discourse intersect to construct our notions of femininity and
masculinity? How are these systems of representation linked to
cultural "facts" and internalized as cultural knowledge? How do
those oppressed by such representations create more empowering

* Nature/nurture: Are there any foundational biological differences
between the two sexes or are all differences socially constructed?
Are there any biological differences between heterosexuality and
homosexuality or have these differences been socially constructed?
What difference does it make if we ask why people become
heterosexual rather than why they become homosexual? 

* Diversity: The category "woman" cannot erase the differences
among individual women's lives. What are the relationships of other
social differences-- which include but are not limited to class,
race, ethnicity, sexual preference, age--to gender? O The body: How
do both men and women understand their embodiedness differently?
How can we describe and interpret female sexuality on its own terms
and in relation to male sexuality? How do scientific theories of
the nature of female sexuality reflect and construct social,
economic, religious, and medical policies and practices? 

O Communication: What does it mean to say that language is
patriarchal? Through what processes do women learn to use language
? Do they have equal access to linguistic resources? How are women
represented within the symbolic order? How do women make meaning?
By whose authority are particular meanings "authorized"? 

O Interpersonal relationships: This plot examines the structuring,
maintenance, and termination of dyadic, family, and work
relationships and other small group interactions. How do socially
constructed gender roles con- tribute to the dynamics of
relationships? What are the dynamics involved in dysfunctional

O Women's creation of knowledge: How have women contributed
throughout the disciplines to the creation of knowledge? How does
the inclusion of women in all disciplines change the ways in which
those disciplines constitute knowledge?


When we devised our system of eight "plots" to describe the
knowledge base of gender studies, we had assumed that these plots
were more or less equal and accessible to all students at every
level. Therefore, the presence or absence of a plot would tell us
whether or not those cultural narratives were being effectively
taught. We expected that students given a choice of topics for
research and writing would distribute themselves across this range
of potential narratives. The results of our scoring, however,
prompted us to rethink this assumption (see Table I ). (The courses
referred to are Gender Studies 200, "Men and Women in American
Society"; Gender Studies 300, "Gender and Aesthetic Expression";
and Gender Studies 440, "Feminist Theory.") One unexpected outcome
was that student papers clustered around the first four plots. This
finding was corroborated by the results from the non-gender studies
inquiry courses (see Table 2) in which, once again, the first plot
(politics) and the fourth (diversity) were heavily represented.


Plots                         GS 200  GS 300  GS 440  Totals 
politics                          11      8       9    28 
cultural images                    2     18      10    30 
nature/nurture                     7      0       3    10 
diversity                          4      0       8    12 
body                               2      1       1     4 
communication                      1      4       2     7 
interpersonal relationships        6      0       3     9 
women's creation of knowledge      0      3       8    11 


Plots                 Basic        Critical      Advanced    Totals
                     Inquiry       Inquiry        Inquiry 
politics                2             2              18        22
cultural images         2             5               0         7 
nature/nurture          0             0               2         2 
diversity              31             7              14        52 
body                    0             1               0         1 
communication           3             0               0         3 
     relationships      3             0               0         3 
women's creation 
of knowledge            2             0               0         2

Our results suggest that knowledge in gender studies is not chaotic
or random. Certain key concepts precede others, laying foundations
for other narratives. While limitations on space prohibit a
detailed discussion of the results for each plot, certain patterns
emerge from the data. The first four plots--the politics of
sex/gender, cultural images of sex/gender, nature/nurture, and
diversity--seem to be both more general and perhaps more basic than
the last four.- ln GS 200 ("Men and Women in American Society"),
the ratio between the first four and last four plots is twenty-four
to nine; one of the first four plots was almost three times more
likely to show up than the last four. In GS 300, the ratio is 26 to
8; in GS 440, 30 to 14. By the time students reach GS 440
("Feminist Theory"), the ratio has dropped to 2 to 1. In the
non-gender studies inquiry courses, the disparity is much more
pronounced: eighty-three to nine, which means that in inquiry
courses the first four plots are nine times more likely to show up
than the last four.

Our results suggest that students need to feel comfortable with the
first four plots before they are ready to move on to the final four
plots. Students must grasp the political ramifications of gender
inequality, the social and political relations that exist between
men and women, and the oppressions built into social structures,
before they can begin to articulate possibilities for change. It
makes sense that students would move from an analysis of sexual
inequality to explore the cultural images that create and reinforce
that in- equality, and then to question whether or not such
inequalities are natural or socially created. The frequency of the
diversity plot in non-gender studies inquiry courses may suggest
that the integration of gender into the core curriculum at Lewis
and Clark is being accompanied by at least some consciousness of
the importance of race and class as complementary categories of
analysis. It also suggests that students might come to understand
gender as a social issue by first understanding other kinds of
inequalities, primarily racial inequalities. The politics of
diversity--racial, class, and sexual--may provide yet another
"gateway" into gender studies.

The virtual absence of the final four plots in non-gender studies
inquiry courses is perhaps the most telling finding, suggesting
that these topics may not be fully covered anywhere in the
curriculum outside of gender studies classes. Taken together, these
findings suggest that integrating gender into the disciplines in
itself is not sufficient remedy to women's past exclusion from the
academy. The focus on certain issues--the body and sexuality,
gender and communication, interpersonal relationships, and most
importantly women's creation of knowledge--may require the kind of
focus only a gender studies minor allows.

                        LEARNING SKILLS 

Our second task in answering the first key question was to
determine what learning skills we hoped students would acquire in
gender studies courses. After considerable discussion, the
following six learning skills emerged: 

* Analyzing gender as a social construct. Students should not only
understand that gender is socially constructed but should be able
to analyze the implications of that assertion as well. They should
understand that masculinity and femininity are relational and not
essential qualities which can simply be labelled as either "good"
or "bad." 

* Questioning the adequacy of traditional form. Since the
traditional academic essay, with its stance of distanced
objectivity, does not encourage self-revelation, students ought to
understand and question the relationships between form and content
in their own and others' writing. They ought to experiment with
forms beyond the traditional academic essay, including (but not
limited to) poetry, epistolary, or journal writing--forms that
reveal more directly the situatedness of knowledge (see below).6 

* Establishing positionality. Students should become increasingly
aware of what we might call their own positionality in relation to
knowledge about gender. Positionality is the point at which
intellectual curiosity becomes personal engagement with the
material studied, often experienced by the student as a sense of
self-awareness or sudden epiphany. We see this movement most
strikingly recorded in student experiments with nontraditional
forms of writing once the student has become aware that his or her
experience may contribute to the ongoing knowledge that constitutes
the study of gender. The student is no longer objectively
reiterating the history of gender relations but has become a
contributor. This personal engagement, once articulated, moves the
student toward a recognition of agency and the ability to produce
rather than repeat knowledge.

* Recognizing agency as well as oppression. Students in gender
studies courses should move from an analysis of power, oppression,
and victimization to one that accounts for the agency of all
oppressed peoples.

* Producing rather than repeating knowledge. In keeping with our
notion that knowledge in gender studies is without boundaries,
students ought to move from a position in which they are repeating
knowledge to one in which they are producing knowledge.

* Understanding the social construction of knowledge. Students
ought to move from the specific analyses of the various "plots" to
a meta-analysis of how knowledge is socially constructed and not
simply "there" to be discovered.

Unlike the knowledge-base plots, learning skills were rated on a
5-point scale with I being the weakest and 5 the strongest. If a
reader saw no evidence of a particular skill, it was not scored. We
scored essays from the same three gender studies courses and, for
comparison, the same set of non-gender studies inquiry courses. The
results of scoring for learning skills are recorded in Tables 3, 4,
and 5.


Skill                         GS 200    GS 300    GS 440    Average
social construction of gender    3.3       4.0       4.0      3.8 
form                             0.8       2.3       0.8      1.1 
positionality                    1.3       1.6       1.6      1.5 
agency                           1.6       2.5       2.2      2.1 
producing knowledge              1.3       2.5       2.1      1.5 
social construction of knowledge 0.0       2.2       3.1      1.8 

Skill                    Critical Inquiry    Adv. Inquiry   Average
social construction 
     of gender                     1.8             0.73       1.27 
form                               0.11            0.5        0.31 
positionality                      0.25            1.26       0.76 
agency                             1.19            0.86        .03 
producing knowledge                0.0             0.4        0.2 
social construction of knowledge  1 .47            1.18       1.33


Skill               A1      A2      B1     B2     C1     C2   Avg 
social construction 
     of gender    0.07     0.0    0.09   0.47    0.0    0.0  0.11 
form              0.0      0.0    1.84   1.3     2.8    2.4  1.39 
positionality     0.07     0.64   1.69   1.77    2.7    1.8  1.45
agency            0.0      0.14   0.38   0.5     0.0    0.0  0.17 
     knowledge    0.0      0.0    0.0    0.43    0.28   0.22 0.16
social construction 
     of knowledge 0.0      0.0    0.0    0.33    0.11   0.05 0.08

Looking at learning skills in related clusters suggests the ways in
which students build on previously acquired skills. Cluster One
includes only the understanding that gender is socially
constructed. Cluster Two includes experimentation with traditional
form as a vehicle for understanding the knower's positionality.
Cluster Three (recognizing agency, producing rather than repeating
knowledge, and the understanding of the social construction of
knowledge) is an interrelated third cluster that leads toward a
greater integration of self-knowledge within a wider social

* Cluster 1: The results indicate that the skill students in gender
studies courses learn most effectively is the social construction
of gender, suggesting that this skill may be foundational. The
results confirm many student responses on the questionnaires that
ranked the social construction of gender and/or sexuality as their
most significant learning experience. For instance, a female
political science major who had taken two required courses wrote,
"To be frank, when I first came to L&C and enrolled in the Social
and Cultural Construction of Gender [GS 210], 1 thought there were
huge biological differences between men and women. I wouldn't have
articulated that but, deep down, I didn't move beyond that social
construction until taking a gender course." Students in gender
studies courses are much more likely to understand and write about
the implications of gender as a social construct than students in
non-gender studies courses, perhaps another indication of the
differences between gender integration and gender focus. 

* Cluster 2: A second cluster of skills, which also might be
characterized as a part of the foundation of gender studies,
includes form and positionality. Gender studies courses scored
somewhat higher on these two skills in comparison with most
non-gender studies courses. Gender studies courses aver- aged 1.1
on experimentation with form and 1.5 on positionality--with GS 200,
as we would expect, the lowest on both skills. The results compare,
however, with an average in "Basic Inquiry" classes of 1.39 for
experimentation with form and 1.45 on positionality. This finding
might suggest that B1 is at least as successful in introducing
these skills as any gender studies course but that these skills are
not reinforced in other parts of the core curriculum. B1 introduces
students to thinking and writing by encouraging them to experiment
with different forms of writing. In addition, B1 portfolios often
rat- ed high on positionality because, once again, the course asked
them to think about themselves in relation to the knowledge they
were acquiring.

Unlike the BI portfolios, which show student development in
thinking and writing over time, the gender studies papers we looked
at can only give us a snapshot of a student's learning at a
particular moment. Because most of the papers we scored--with the
exception of B1 portfolios--were responses to fairly traditional
assignments, it was difficult for students to demonstrate
experimentation with nontraditional form and even, in many cases,
positionality. With the exception of GS 300 (which is a course
about aesthetic form), experimentation with form did not seem to be
a major concern in these papers. There are, however, other places
in which students in gender studies courses are encouraged to
experiment with form and to write about their own epiphanies. Most
gender studies courses require some combination of journals,
diaries, daily logs, computer conversations, and reflective and
exploratory writing--material reviewed but not scored for this
study. This nontraditional writing contributed significantly to the
outcomes of the papers we did score. Here we run up against the
limits of the quantitative method we chose. The data from the
questionnaires and from informal student writing tell us that
students in gender studies courses experience all sorts of
connections, clicks, epiphanies and the like, but because we did
not score the kinds of writing in which they are revealed, we must
turn to a more textured qualitative analysis as evidence for those

A representative illustration demonstrates the powerful
longitudinal self-discovery our students claim gender studies
promotes. This example comes from the journal of a male student who
took "Communication and Gender," which serves as a gender studies
elective. At the beginning of his notebook, this student writes
that some of the authors of course readings have "chips on their
shoulders" and offend and anger their readers. He goes on to say,
"So I have some problems trying to understand and deal with all of
the 'complaining,' as I think of it, that women are doing these
days." At the beginning, he does not see the relevance of the
examples given by the authors in support of their arguments. He
says, "Who is coming up with all of this? It kind of comes across
like these people are of a communist type of thinking." He believes
that there really is no cause for change and that "women see only
what they want to see." Later on, this student becomes less
defensive, yet he still says, "I don't see the male sex as ever
changing." Furthermore, he does not see anything wrong with using
generic terms such as "he" or "man."

However, he begins to see that "culture has a big effect on the
roles of men and women and their conversational differences." His
comments about an incident he saw on ESPN reveal his growing
awareness of how certain off-hand comments can affect others who
hear them. He even begins to value so-called feminine traits and
says that homophobia and expectations of "masculine" behavior stand
in the way of gender communication. He be- comes aware that
socialization influences gender ideals and communication. Finally
he says, "Bate describes what feminism is and what it wants to
accomplish. I have been kind of vague about what feminism is, but
this chapter has helped me develop a much better understanding of
the actions and goals of the movement." Perhaps the most remarkable
feature of this student's development is the movement from vague
assertions and attacks--"Who is coming up with all this?"--to
specific analyses of readings which have particular authors, "Bate
describes what feminism is." Not only has this student be- gun to
understand what the social construction of gender means in his own
life, he has begun to engage intellectually with the material as
well. This same student is currently enrolled in a second gender
studies course.

* Cluster 3: The second cluster of skills focuses on students'
abilities to see the relationships between knowledge about gender
and their personal lives, a connection that turned up repeatedly in
our questionnaires as one of central importance. The next level of
learning skills would involve integrating this newfound personal
engagement with a wider social context of which the self is a part.
This stage involves the integration of intellectual knowledge and
political activism for change.

Students' understanding of the agency of the oppressed tended to be
lower than we might have hoped, particularly in the upper-level
courses. Gender studies courses on the whole, however, did better
than non-gender studies courses on this skill, suggesting that
students in gender studies courses are more likely than students in
other classes to be able to move from an analysis of oppression and
victimization to an understanding of how oppression is resisted.

Students in gender studies courses, especially in upper-level
courses, scored consistently higher on the fifth learning
skill--producing rather than repeating knowledge. This is perhaps
because students do not see knowledge as isolated and fragmentary.
Instead, again and again, they remark that their understanding of
gender connects the various parts of their lives and education.

Deciphering the social construction of knowledge may be the most
difficult of all the skills to acquire. Not surprisingly, it was
not addressed in GS 200, the introductory course, but received the
highest score in the upper-level courses, particularly GS 440, a
course that investigates the social construction of knowledge.
Non-gender studies courses consistently scored lower than
equivalent gender studies courses, a finding that puzzled us since
the goal of understanding knowledge as socially constructed is not
unique to gender studies. However, our findings suggest that
feminist inquiry may be more committed than other nontraditional
pedagogies to a social constructionist perspective.


The first and most significant conclusion from the data is that
there is a crucial difference between the integration of gender
into the curriculum and the kind of systematic investigation of
gender that the minor allows. The in-depth inquiry into gender as
a system allows for an analysis of issues that a course which is
gender-balanced hut not gender-focused usually cannot achieve
because the students have not yet grasped the key assumptions on
which gender studies is based. Without such a basis, students will
be impeded in their discussions of, say, sexuality or language and
gender because they will he struggling to understand the politics
of the issue. All of the non-gender studies inquiry courses we
examined were relatively gender-balanced. Yet the relative
infrequency of the final four plots and the low scores on the last
cluster of skills in non-gender studies courses suggest that
students acquire some knowledge and skills from gender-focused
courses that they cannot acquire from even the most well-integrated
non-gender studies courses.

A second conclusion we might draw from these data is that the
sequence of courses in our minor is well designed to lay the
groundwork required for students to advance to more in-depth and
critical analysis of gender. The elective introductory course, GS
200, focuses primarily on the politics of sex/gender while
introducing elements of the next three plots cultural images,
nature/nurture, and diversity. While in the past elements of the
last four plots have been included in the courses our results might
suggest that this is not necessarily a good idea. We might do
better using the course to integrate the first four plots more
fully. In addition, this course is the place to work on the
development of the first two clusters. Faculty members designing
this course in the future may want to think more about how writing
in the course can be designed to enable students to track
discoveries about themselves more fully and to experiment with a
greater variety of writing forms.

We do not mean to suggest that students encountering this model of
knowledge base and learning skills must move through it in a lock
step fashion. Indeed, that is hardly ever the case at Lewis and
Clark College, where students often do not take courses in
sequence. Students enter gender studies courses at several points
in the curriculum and for very different reasons. We hope that our
discoveries suggest not a rigid and hierarchical curriculum, not a
topography, but a topography, or a map, that might help students
find their way around in the field, allowing movement in a variety
of directions but still enabling students to forge connections and
to build on previously acquired knowledge and skills.

                      INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE

"There is support for being a man [at Lewis and Clark]."

"Lewis and Clark is a comparatively safe and supportive place to be
a woman." 

"[The Gender Studies Program] defines L&C as a safe place for
people, where they can express their gender as they see fit."

To assess the impact of gender studies on classroom and
institutional climates at Lewis and Clark, we looked at three
areas: I ) efforts to integrate gender analysis into disciplinary
and interdisciplinary courses; 2) whether or not there is such a
thing as feminist pedagogy and if so whether it has been integrated
into the institutional culture; and 3) the effectiveness of the
Gender Studies Symposium as a means of integration and connected
learning for our students. Due to space constraints and a focus on
pedagogy by other reporting institutions we will not report here
the results of our study in that area.

The qualitative evidence from our questionnaire demonstrates that
students perceive that the Gender Studies Program has a significant
impact on the institutional climate. A transfer student describes
the impact as "profound": "[the Gender Studies Program] is why I
transferred here.... I know many people for whom it has been
transformative.... Also, because gender is put on the line here, I
feel more comfortable dealing with my professors openly on the
issue as well as bringing it into class.... Each class (even
outside Gender Studies) heightens my awareness about these
issues.... L&C seems to be a safe atmosphere for women to speak out
and not worry about being disregarded. Although I'm sure it's not
perfect. . .I feel that in comparison to other schools I've
attended, L&C is a 'gender haven'."

Even relatively new students notice an institutional climate that
permeates the classroom. At the end of her first year, an
eighteen-year-old who had taken no gender classes reported these
observations: "One thing I have noticed at Lewis and Clark is that
all professors, from sociology to physics, are aware of their
language as it applies to gender. This awareness is perpetuated and
enforced by students who will stop a professor or another student
if s/he says something inappropriate.... [E]very male should be
required to attend Lewis and Clark for a year.

Men here cannot get away with slander against women commonly used
by men at other schools."


Students singled out integration of gender in non-gender studies
courses as a significant dimension of their educational experience.
When asked on the questionnaire to rate their overall learning in
other general college curriculum courses that included a focus on
gender issues, the average student rating was 4.3. Most of these
students commented in positive terms about their experiences in
these courses, placing them into the categories of"excellent/
best/favorite/good/better/more interesting/more personal/more
challenging/more discussion-oriented/more diversity of issues/more
student participation." Typical comments were: "They were more
interesting and intellectually stimulating than most" and "Better
than average. Generally more thorough, thoughtful, and demanding."

To document this student assessment of gender integration across
the curriculum at Lewis and Clark, we took the list of courses
students identified in the questionnaire as having a gender focus
and eliminated those which were either required or elective courses
for the gender studies minor. We were left with eighty-one courses
which students claimed incorporated a gender perspective. The
distribution among the three college divisions was remarkably un-
even. In Fine Arts and Humanities there were forty-seven courses
named; in Social Sciences, twenty-seven; and in Natural Sciences,
only seven.

We were surprised, however--even astonished--by the number of
courses on this list and the diversity of course titles. A focus on
gender issues in "Labor Economics"? "Europe in Crisis"? "Old
Testament"? To examine the issue more thoroughly, we chose twenty
of these courses, divided among the three divisions and between
male and female professors (see page 79). Using an adaptation of
Mary Kay Thompson Tetreault's "feminist phase theory," we scored
syllabi and course materials for curriculum integration.

Based upon our evaluation of syllabi and course materials
submitted, each course received a numerical score for its stage of
curriculum integration, according to the following scale: 

* 0: Women Invisible. Who are the truly great actors/thinkers in
history? At this stage, they are overwhelmingly, perhaps
exclusively, male, white, and European. The need to maintain
"standards of excellence" is stressed either through a "back to
basics" core curriculum or through an emphasis on upholding the
great Western tradition.

* 1: The Search for Missing Women. Who were the great women, the
female Shakespeares, Napoleons, Darwins? At this stage, new data
about women are added to the conventional paradigms of knowledge in
the disciplines as a kind of affirmative action program. You would
expect to see "exceptional women" on the syllabus or as subjects of
student writing.

* 2: Women as Disadvantaged, Subordinate Group. Why are there so
few great women thinkers/actors? Why are women's contributions
devalued? The incentive at this phase might be anger or a desire
for social justice. At this stage, one is protesting the existing
paradigms but within the perspective of the dominate group. Here we
would include "images of women" courses, women in politics, the
beginnings of women-focused courses.

* 3: Women as Agents/Actors. What were/are women's experiences?
What are the differences among women? Here we expect inquiry to
take place outside existing disciplinary paradigms, challenging the
dominant perspective. Women-focused course would predominate, along
with interdisciplinary or discipline-challenging course. Links with
ethnic and cross-cultural studies are explored.

* 4: Women's Experiences as Epistemological Challenge to
Disciplines, How valid are current definitions of historical
periods, greatness, norms for behaving? How must our questions
change to account for women's experience, diversity, and

* 5: Transformed, Gender-Balanced Curriculum. How can both women's
and men's experience be understood together, in relation to each
other? How do class, race, sexual preferences, and age intersect
with gender? This course would present an inclusive vision of human
experience, which would seek to transform paradigms of knowledge
and reconceptualize the "core curriculum."

Our analysis of syllabi is confirmed the students' perceptions
about gender focus in the course they had identified. Table 6 shows
our findings on stages of gender integration listed by division.


Division            No. of Courses           Average Stage of
                    Evaluated                Curriculum Integration

Arts & Humanities        9                        3.6
Social Science           9                        3.2
Natural Science          2                        3.5


Stage          0         1         2         3         4         5
No. of Courses None      None      2         12        2         4

The average stage of curriculum integration for all twenty courses
analyzed in the three divisions was 3.4. In no case did we identify
a syllabus that scored lower than 2 on the scale. Although we had
expected to find some degree of gender integration in these course
syllabi, we wer pleased by the depth of integration which emerged
from this analysis. It is worth pointing out, however, that in the
natural science division we scored only two of the seven course
named, so that the average score of 3.5 for the natural sciences
may be skewed. The fact that out of eight-one courses only seven
named by student as being gender balnaced were from this division
suggests that continued curriculum integration is necessary for
mathematics and the natural sciences.


To add another dimension to our analysis, we scored a collection of
student papers from five core curriculum inquiry courses using the
same integration stage scale developed for the course syllabi
above. We found that student papers scored consistently lower than
course syllabi (see Table 8).

                     ADVANCED INQUIRY PAPERS

Integration Stages       Critical Inquiry         Advanced Inquiry

0-Women Invisible             2                        0
1-Search for Missing Women    0                        9
3-Women as Agenst             4                        6
4-Epsitemological Challenge   10                       1
5-Balanced Curriculum         2                        1
Average Integration           3.22                     2.0

Papers from the critical inquiry course showed an average of stage
3 on the integration scale, with most of the papers clustered at
stage 4. The syllabus for this course was at stage 5. In the
advanced inquiry course, papers were predominantly clustered at
stages 1 and 2, while the course syllabus scored at a stage 3 of

One conclusion we can draw from this analysis is that it again
points to the difference between courses with a gender focus and
thos which are gender integrated. While an integrated course may
contain a gender-balanced presentation in its course materials, it
will contain many other agendas as well. When students choose paper
topics, gender is only one of many possibilities for further
exploration. In a course with a gender focus, however, students
cannot ignore the issue of gender.

Having looked at course syllabi and student papers in some core
curriculum courses, we moved to consideration of longitudinal
effects by scoring the first and final portfolios from three
sections of "Basic Inquiry" using the integration scale. By the end
of the term, all three sections gained approximately a percentage
point in integration, although variation across sections occurred.
The finding suggests significant longitudinal growth for first-year
students across their first term. In the initial portfolios, women
were invisible in nineteen cases; by the end of the term, there
were no portfolios in this category.

Table 9 shows the average gender integration scores for each
section's portfolios.

                      SECTIONS A, B, AND C

Average             1st Portfolio    2nd Portfolio     Longitudinal
Integration                                                 Gain
Section A                .29            1.7                 1.41
Section B                1.13           2.0                 .87
Section C                .55            1.3                 .75

In summary, we concluded that the strength of gender integration in
non-gender studies courses confirms the observations of the
sophomore who told us on the questionnaire:"I've not taken a gender
studies course, but I've been exposed to gender issues through
other classes. My time commitments to my major and minor don't
allow for elective gender classes, so I'm truly glad and
appreciative of the focus that gender receives in my other


In 1982, the first Lewis and Clark Gender Studies Symposium was
composed of one community presentation and papers by two Lewis and
Clark faculty members and one student. It has grown each year.
Table 10 shows the growth in symposium presenters over the last ten


Year      LC faculty     LC students    Community      Other
1982           2              1              1           1
1983           4              4              0           2
1984           13             13             0           14
1985           4              42             5           25
1986           9              40             0           21
1987           8              28             4           10
1988           23             40             17          10
1989           17             53+            4           13
1990           17             50+            26          4
1991           25             100+           16          23

In 1991, our tenth year, attendance and participation set all-time
records. The symposium had a total of fifty-three events spread
over four days. Attendance at the three keynote addresses by Gerda
Lerner, John Stolenberg, and Carter Heyward ranged from five
hundred to seven hundred people per evening. Attendance at the
panels and workshops throughout the four days was also very high,
occasionally "standing room only." The range for panel attendance
was a minimum of thirty-five to a maximum of two hundred fifty,
with an average of seventy-five to eighty for panels, theatre
performances, and workshops.

We do not know of another annual symposium where student papers are
presented with those of faculty members and visiting scholars.
During the 1991 Gender Studies Symposium, more than one hundred
Lewis and Clark students presented scholarly papers, read original
poetry or fiction, exhibited artwork, or participated in theater
productions. This is in addition to the students who moderated
panels or introduced speakers and the members of the planning
committee who worked behind the scenes in many capacities,
including hosting keynote speakers and Fulbright scholars. In
addition to the number of students who are actively involved in
planning the symposium and presenting their work, many students
receive their initial "introduction" to the discussion of gender
issues through attendance at symposium events. Many faculty members
integrate symposium sessions into their syllabi.

We hoped to learn whether the symposium is reaching the general
college population in any significant ways or if it merely
"preaches to the choir." Of the 145 students responding to our
questionnaire, 109 had attended one or more symposia, and 42 of
these students had taken at least one required gender studies core
course. When asked, "What was the effect of symposium attendance on
your understanding of issues of gender, race, and class?" the
average rating from those who attended was 4.2 on a scale of 1 to
5. The twenty-four alumnae(i) respondents rated their learning in
the symposia at 4.3. In describing their participation in the
symposium, students frequently used adjectives such as
"challenging," "revolutionary," "inspiring," "excel- lent,"
"amazing," "transforming," "informative," "educational," and
"empowering. "

Twenty-one students had been symposium planners, presenters, or
moderators and rated their learning experience at 4.6. Symposium
presenters scored their learning the highest, illustrating their
stronger sense of learning through the experience of direct
involvement. They commented: "I spoke on campus attitudes regarding
rape.... It seemed to define my position as a feminist more clearly
for me. I was very glad that I spoke. I learned a lot about my
feelings on the issues." "Being asked to present my paper and doing
it was frightening and exhilarating as a woman afraid of public

Of the students who had taken no required gender studies courses,
seventy-three had attended at least one symposium, and five had
participated in presenting, planning, or moderating. Clearly, the
symposium attracts students who are not enrolled in gender studies
courses. One first-year student commented: "Although I have not
taken any classes in the Gender Studies Program, I have gone to
three of the symposium events. I was pleased with all of them; I
can't believe how much a few hours can change one's perspective....
Not all of us have enough interest or time to take the classes, but
we still want to learn. The symposium is perfect for this
objective.... Everything I saw at the symposium reminded me of what
I can do or not do to make the world between men and women easier
to cross."

Many other students commented on the intellectual excitement and
new awareness generated by attending symposium sessions: "Woke me
up! I just attended and listened and listened and thought and
questioned. I'm be- ginning to see new perspectives on things." "It
was so incredible to see people (staff and students) present things
they had worked on. There were so many varied issues that it made
me really think about a variety of subjects, not just my own area
of concentration." "Learning from my peers, through their papers is
a rare and valuable experience, in that it generates a sense of
community among us." "I gained a new perspective on the sometimes
angry and/or defensive pose developed by many lesbians as a result
of society's rejection and condescension about their
lifestyle/sexual orientation."

Because of the excitement surrounding symposium discussions,
various groups have formed that meet year round and are ancillary
to or spin-offs from the Gender Studies Symposium. In 1991,
students initiated a computer conversation program for gender
issues, which included topics such as rape, gay, lesbian and
bisexual issues, abortion, and "survivor stories." Also in 1991,
students conceptualized and published the first issue of Synergia,
a gender issues journal.

                         PERSONAL GROWTH

As the New York Times etc. whips up hysteria nationwide about
alleged "indoctrination" by feminists, "leftists," and
anti-Bloomites, I am bemused by the retro-stupidity of it all and
grateful that at Lewis and Clark the people who mattered understood
that a mono-cultural androcentric, hetero-sexist education was not
an education! I didn't learn how to be "politically correct" at
LC--I learned how to take myself and other people seriously and to
value complexity. If that's "PC, " thank god for it! And, as a
teacher now, I value the example of LC faculty who understood and
showed that they understood their own responsibility to be
self-critical and generous. 
                          A LEWIS AND CLARK GRADUATE

Of the students (N= 145) and alumnae(i) (N=24) who responded to the
questionnaire, most saw learning about gender, race, and class as
essential to their education and called for more institutional
support of the Gender Studies Program. A typical comment was,
"Gender studies is a necessity in a liberal arts education." One
first-year male student, who had taken gender studies elective
courses and attended one symposium, wrote: "It is the
responsibility of a liberal arts college to provide gender
education to its students. Never let gender studies at Lewis and
Clark be ended. It is one of the most important programs here."

The Lewis and Clark alumna above who referred to political
correctness in her 1991 questionnaire response has completed her
Ph.D. and currently is a professor at a large midwestern
university. She writes that when she arrived at Lewis and Clark, in
the early 1980s, she was already "a committed feminist" and was
thrilled by the "extraordinary proliferation of feminist
perspectives across the curriculum, not just in gender studies
classes." While the majority of students who arrive at Lewis and
Clark are not typically self-proclaimed "committed feminists,"7
data collected for our study suggest similar personal growth themes
introduced in this alumna's questionnaire: heightened awareness
through intellectual community, increased self-esteem, empowerment,
and agency. To understand how learning through the Gender Studies
Program affects the personal growth of women and men, we asked a
number of open-ended questions in our questionnaires, which invited
students and alumnae(i) to reflect on what impact, if any, the
program had on their lives.


The first personal growth theme that emerged was heightened
awareness through intellectual community. The annual Gender Studies
Symposium was the vehicle which provided intellectual community for
many students. An alumna recalled: "Learning from my peers, through
their papers, was a rare and valuable experience...that...generated
a sense of community among us." 

Another graduate wrote: "The symposium ratified my sense that the
world of gender scholarship was a big place with enormous
complexity and that any denial of that complexity--in the name of
'excellence' or 'unity' or even 'sisterhood'--was dangerous and
counterproductive." Heightened awareness through intellectual
community was underscored by the woman student who reflected on her
symposium participation:

The most significant experience I have had at Lewis and Clark was
participating in the Gender Studies Symposium.... Much of what I
learned changed my attitudes and beliefs and gave me new concepts
to examine. Many of the ideas deeply moved me, making me aware of
unfulfilled desires in my personal life and in the world as a

Respondents noted that the symposium promotes heightened awareness
by reaching students who, due to enrollment demands, frequently are
denied access to gender studies courses. Seventy-five percent of
our random, stratified student sample had attended one or more
symposia. A senior who had attended four symposia observed, "The
Gender Studies Symposium was, I believe, the most well-attended
event on campus this year. You don't have to have taken gender
courses or be a gender minor to be affected by the Gender Studies
Program on this campus." This observation was confirmed by a first-
year student's comment: "I've become aware of gender discussions
that I've been completely blind to before." For a graduate, the
gender symposium had "an eye-opening effect [and was] an entrance
to an unfamiliar and very familiar world of issues." Another
graduate reflected, "I always learned more about other races,
especially during the symposium and felt more aware and sensitive
to people of color."

As an example of heightened awareness through intellectual
community, we turn to a narrative provided by a male student, a
double major in international affairs and economics, who wrote: "As
a white male, who thought I was open-minded and aware, feminism and
my own sexist behavior have shattered that illusion. I'm thankful
for it; I just wish it had occurred earlier." After attending his
first symposium in 1991, he wrote:

Until April of this year, I would not have labeled myself a
feminist, nor was I even aware of what it meant. The impetus for me
was hearing [in a class] an LC woman tell about her rape. I was
deeply moved and disturbed by this. I did not think that rape was
so pervasive, so I decided that I was not as informed about what
was happening in the world. I went to the International Woman's Day
at [Portland State University] and. . . I signed up for the
Portland Women's Crisis Line training for men.... The Gender
Symposium brought all the information and more into the core of my
being.... The pornography presentation on Wednesday drilled home my
internalized sexism and made me internalize all the other
information that had been previously left out of my life .... The
experience was extreme, but I would want it no other way. I'm
thankful to those women who have helped open my eyes. I realize
that the issues must become a responsibility of men to correct. My
actions and behavior in the future will show the impact that the
gender symposium had on me. Gender studies and the symposium must
keep growing so that we may, one day, see a world of equality.

For those who enrolled in gender studies courses, awareness is
heightened even more. After taking GS 440, "Feminist Theory," a
senior male student wrote: "It has made me open my eyes and see
more clearly the complexities concerning gender, race, and class in
our society. It has made me examine myself much more critically."
Another student found that gender studies courses had "an
incredible impact" on her "gender awareness and sensitivity." After
taking GS 231, "Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective," a male
student majoring in biology and chemistry wrote: "I used to be
really homophobic. Presently, several of my friends are admitted
homophiles. I love them!"

Fourteen alumnae(i) rated their gender courses at the 5 level,
three at the 4 level, and one at the 3 level. One alumnus, now a
graduate student in international affairs, commented: "Before
coming to LC, I had not been ex- posed even to the idea that gender
was a subject in and of itself.... I started to recognize what
little I knew and what I still had to learn." Another graduate
wrote: "They [the gender courses] completely revolutionized my
understanding of life on this planet, and more specifically, my
life. They were the most important part of my education." "Not
until I got in law school," wrote an- other alumna, "did I realize
the everyday understanding and sensitivity that I had gained about
gender, race, and class was so unusual."

                     EMPOWERMENT AND AGENCY 

For male students, heightened awareness was the most frequent and
dominant personal growth theme. As one male senior put it, "We men
have a lot The majority of respondents did not see gender studies
as an isolated retreat...but as an integral part of their
experience at Lewis and Clark to learn." But while men most
frequently cited heightened awareness, women were much more likely
to point to empowerment and agency as personal outcomes of their
education. For many women, the presence of female professors in
gender studies was empowering. One student recalled: "Some of the
profs really served as mentors--strong women role models are so
important to all students." After taking "Rhetoric of Women," a
gender studies elective, a woman who plans to pursue graduate study
in psychology wrote: "The experience of studying women who worked
to make changes in our country was empowering, giving me new role
models to admire and emulate. I developed a new confidence in
myself as a woman. I want to be a part of the continuation of
spreading new knowledge and research, and making a difference in
people's lives."

Movement from heightened awareness to empowerment and agency was
apparent in many student and alumnae(i) statements, again
particularly those of women. One woman student described this
personal growth as "a sense of pride in who I am and what I can do
as an individual in society." Another student felt empowered with
"the ability to question what I see happening" and able to act as
an agent to "change what I am doing." "For me personally," wrote
one student, "this awareness within the classroom validated my
experience as a woman (so that it was just as real and valued as
male experience), as a lesbian, and as a powerful person. In many
ways, it has been and continues to be very empowering." Another
student wrote: "Getting in touch with my feminist voice put me in
touch with a lot of issues around me. It also helped me to get
involved with the symposium planning committee and the Portland
Women's Crisis Line." For another woman student, gender studies
courses "let me learn to think critically and be more confident and
challenge oppressing situations...."

Finally, the narrative provided by a forty-six-year-old student is
a moving reflection on personal growth through gender studies
courses. This student excelled as a major in English and a minor in
gender studies, and she celebrated a June graduation with her
husband and children. In her student questionnaire, she wrote:

When the Women's Movement was prominent in the late '60s and 7051
1 was raising my two children and didn't get involved at all. I
lived in a very conservative state (Nevada), and I was ignorant. At
thirty, I thought I was too old to go to college. When I was
forty-two, I realized I couldn't go on being a secretary. I started
college for the first time -  the community college here in
Portland. After I had seventy-two credits, I transferred to Lewis
and Clark because (I) they emphasize writing and critical thinking,
and (2) they have a Gender Studies Program. I had felt a lack over
the years because I didn't have the knowledge to put into words
what I'd experienced, felt, or thought. I wanted to know women
writers and see if I could become a better me. Being an older
student was very difficult the first term.... This year, my senior
year, I spoke out against unfairnesses and supported friends and
issues. This year, I realize I'm smart, strong, worthy, thoughtful,
analytic--yes, I'm what I always wanted to be--Me. I used to be
afraid to be me; now I feel I can stand taller.


The exploration of our three key questions and the conclusions
suggested by our data can be broken down into four findings: 

*Student and alumnae(i) enthusiasm for gender studies translates
into enthusiasm for Lewis and Clark as an institution. The majority
of respondents did not see gender studies as an isolated retreat
from the rest of the college but as an integral part of their
experience at Lewis and Clark. Many felt gender studies defined
Lewis and Clark. This finding has, we think, important implications
for recruiting and retaining students and faculty members. 

*Although many respondents spoke about the integration of gender
into the curriculum along with the minor as interdependent
components of the Gender Studies Program, the study shows that
there are important differences between attempts to integrate
gender into the curriculum as a whole (including the symposium) and
the minor with its focus on gender. The study reminds us that while
both elements of the program are essential, they serve different
ends and often reach different audiences. One could not, and should
not, be substituted for the other. Gender integration enables the
program to heighten awareness of gender issues on campus, introduce
new information about women's contributions to the disciplines, and
generally to improve the institutional climate, while the minor
creates a space for in-depth analysis of gender and for exploration
of the full range of cultural narratives articulated in our
knowledge base. Without the minor, many of the knowledge plots and
learning skills would not be available to students; without the
integration component, the program would risk becoming isolated. 

* It follows from the second conclusion that the Gender Studies
Program at Lewis and Clark should not expand to become a major. The
interrelationships between integration efforts and the minor
provide the best possible combination for our students at this
time. The data indicate that the minor enables students to forge
connections not only between their academic studies and their
personal experiences (as we would also expect a women's studies
major to do) but also between the gender minor and other course
work they do, including their majors. The breadth of majors
represented both in our minors and in other students who enroll in
gender studies courses is striking and contributes enormously to
the interdisciplinary nature of the program. This conversation
among various disciplines might be lost if the program were
institutionally isolated as a department or major. 

* Based on our own analysis of the knowledge base and learning
skills of gender studies, we might conclude that the sequencing of
courses within the minor is well designed to take students through
the various knowledge plots and learning clusters, enabling
students to build upon previous learning; but we are not able to
guarantee that students take the courses in the designed sequence.
One recommendation might be to require GS 200, "Men and Women in
American Society," of all gender studies minors and make it a
prerequisite for other gender studies courses. We plan to initiate
a discussion of the feasibility of such a move and its impact on
staffing and student accessibility.

Most significantly, our study validated our own sense of the
importance of gender studies at Lewis and Clark. In all our
investigations for this study, only one respondent (a male who had
never participated in gender studies) called for the abolition of
the program. Most representative were the responses of two students
who wrote:

I think one of the best things about the LC Gender Studies Program
is that it does attempt and has had some success in getting an
integrated body of students (I mean men and women) in the
classroom. When the issues can be discussed between men and women,
different perspectives can be offered, and everyone can learn

I like men being in the classroom . (They are, since they feel
included. ) I get to know them in a different way.

It seems, in a delicious irony, that we have come full circle. At
the founding of Lewis and Clark over a century ago, women were to
be included along with men in a curriculum that recognized that the
presence of women in the classroom could contribute significantly
to the quality of the academic conversation. As the twentieth
century draws to a close, the Gender Studies Program at Lewis and
Clark College provides a space in which men can work side by side
with women to formulate more effective strategies for promoting
social equality, justice, tolerance, and diversity.

1. We are indebted to a number of people who contributed to the
structure and content of Lewis and Clark's study. Mary
Henning-Stout, Assistant Professor of Counseling Psychology at
Lewis and Clark, provided advice about research design in the early
stages of our work. Joan Poliner Shapiro, Lee Knefelkamp, and Caryn
McTighe Musil, along with other members of the National Assessment
Team, provided valuable suggestions throughout the process.
Finally, we are indebted to the faculty, students, and
administrators at Lewis and Clark who contributed in so many ways
and made this study possible. 

2. Martha Frances Montague, Lewis and Clark College, 1867-1967
(Portland, Ore.: Binfords and Mort, 1968), 11-12. 

3. Mary Kay Thompson Tetreault, "Integrating Content About Women
and Gender into the Curriculum," in Multicultural Education: Issues
and Perspectives ed. James A. Banks and Cherry M. McGee Banks
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989). 

4. Language, Gender, and Society (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House,

5. Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, "Teaching
Feminist Theory" in Theory in the Classroom, ed. Cary Nelson
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 58 66. 

6. For the literature on situated knowledge, see Donna Haraway,
"Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective," Feminist Studies 14 (1988):

7. Review of several years of comparative data on entering
first-year students at four-year, private, nonsectarian colleges
shows that Lewis and Clark students are more likely to enter with
higher interest in political and social action than their
counterparts at other institutions and are more likely to take
"liberal" positions on issues such as the death penalty, military
spending, and homosexual relations. Lewis and Clark students report
that they arrive with high interest in obtaining a "general
education" and less interest in attending college "to make more
money." For detailed information, see: "The Astin Study," data
collected by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program and
sponsored jointly by the American Council on Education and
University of California-Los Angeles. 

                      STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
                     LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE

Year in School: 

                 Part 1: Gender Studies Program 

1. What do you think are the objectives of the Gender Studies
Program at Lewis and Clark ?

2. How well do you believe these objectives are being met? (What
particular strengths and weaknesses do you perceive?)

3. What difference, if any, do you see between a gender studies
program and a women's studies program?

4. What impact, if any, do you believe the gender studies program
has had on Lewis and Clark ?

5. In your opinion, should Lewis and Clark have a gender studies
program? Why or why not?

              Part II: Gender Studies Core Courses 

1. Indicate which, if any, of the following gender studies core
courses you have completed and in which courses you are currently
C = completed course E = enrolled course 
[list of courses followed on original questionnaire]

2. Circle the number on the scale that best represents your overall
learning in the above gender studies core courses: 
            1       2       3       4        5 
           poor    fair  average   good   excellent 

3. What do you consider to be your most significant and least
significant learning experiences in these courses?

4. How do these gender studies core courses compare with other
courses you have taken at Lewis and Clark?

5. Was the learning/teaching climate in these gender studies core
courses different from your non-gender studies classes? If so, how?

6. What effect, if any, have these gender studies core courses had
on your understanding of issues of gender, race, and class?

7. Which of these courses would you recommend to other students?

        Part III: Practicum/Internship in Gender Studies 

If you completed or are currently involved in a
practicum/internship in gender studies, describe the practicum and
comment on the experience:

           Part IV: Other Courses with a Gender Focus 

1. What other courses have you taken in the Lewis and Clark general
college curriculum that included a focus on gender issues?

2. Circle the number on the scale that best represents your overall
learning in these courses:

               1       2       3       4       5 
              poor   fair   average   good    excellent

3. What do you consider to be your most significant and least
significant learning experience in these courses?

4. How do these courses compare with other courses you have taken
at Lewis and Clark ?

5. Which of these courses would you recommend to other students?

              Part V: Gender and Overseas Programs 

1. Have you participated in a Lewis and Clark overseas program? 

If yes, what was the program? 

2. How did gender issues figure in the program--in preparation,
during the course of the overseas study, after return to campus?

               Part VI: Gender Studies Symposium 

1. Have you ever attended any of the Lewis and Clark Gender Studies
Symposium events? 

If yes, circle the year(s) of your participation in the symposium? 
       1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990

2. Which events do you recall attending, and what was your

3. What effect did your attendance at the symposium have on your
understanding of issues of gender, race, and class?

4. Circle the number of the scale that best represents your
learning experience in the symposium ?

                  1      2      3       4       5 
                 poor   fair  average  good  excellent

5. Have you ever been involved as a planner, presenter, or
moderator in a Lewis and Clark Gender Studies Symposium? Yes    No

If yes, circle the year(s) of your participation: 
     1982   1983   1984    1985    1986   1987   1988   1989   1990

6. Describe and comment on your participation in the symposium:

7. What effect did your participation in the symposium have on your
understanding of issues of gender, race, and class?

8 Circle the number of the scale that best represents your learning
experience as a symposium planner, presenter, and/or moderator: 

                  1      2      3      4      5 
                poor   fair  average  good  excellent 

                      Part VII: What Else? 

What else would you like to communicate to us about the Gender
Studies Program at Lewis and Clark as we plan for the future?


               Theory, Content, and Praxis Goals 

1. To examine feminist theories concerning the social and
historical constructions of gender, both locally and globally,
a. the relational rather than essential nature of women/femininity
and men/ masculinity; 
b. how gender defines relationships among men, among women, and
between men and women; 
c. how gender defines sexuality, sexual identity, social
inequality, and the family.

2. To improve upon our model of gender studies, including a
critique of Western feminist theory.

3. To recognize that women's lives have been under-represented in
traditional disciplines and to identify women's as well as men's
roles in cultural, social, and scientific endeavors.

4. To study, compare, and evaluate an array of disciplinary
constructions of gender including, but not limited to, aesthetic,
cross-cultural, psychological, and biological perspectives.

5. To identify the intersections of gender with race, class, age,
sexual identity, and ethnicity, both locally and globally.

6. To integrate gender analysis into students' academic programs,
a. the Core Program (general education program); 
b. the other College mission foci--International Education and STV
(Science, Technology, and Values); 
c. other interdisciplinary programs; 
d. disciplinary curricula.

7. To involve students and faculty in a critical appraisal of how
institutional and classroom climates affect the learning of women
and men.

8. To provide classroom and institutional climates that encourage
synthesis as well as questioning, connection as well as criticism,
action as well as thought, practice as well as theory.


Fine Arts and Humanities 
English 205 (Medieval and Renaissance Literature) 
English 206 (Seventeenth & Eighteenth-Century Literature) 
English 315 (American Literature, WWII-present) 
History 232 (Europe in Crisis, 1890-1950) 
History 270 (India: Past and Present) 
Art 224 (Painting) 
Philosophy 354 (Aesthetics) 
Philosophy 421 (American Ideology and Culture) 
Religious Studies 222 (Old Testament)

Mathematics and Natural Sciences 
Biology 111 (Perspectives in Biology) 
Health and Physical Education 350 (Mental Health)

Social Science 
Communications 101 (Introduction to Interpersonal and
Communications 330 (Communication and Culture) 
Economics 335 (Labor Economics) 
Education 305/550 (Historical/Ethical Perspectives on Education)
International Affairs 230 (African Politics) 
International Affairs 237 (Third World Politics) 
Psychology 218 (Abnormal Psychology) 
Sociology/Anthropology 110 (Introduction to Cultural Anthropology)
Sociology/Anthropology 350 (Global Inequality)