In last week’s issue of The Phillipian, Abigail Burman ’12 lamented the lack of female leaders at Phillips Academy. She maintained, among other things, that “in the mind of an Andover student, a leader should always be male,” and that “female leaders are simply not taken seriously.” She asserted that Andover has “never truly integrated [females] into the school’s story and the school’s culture,” and that “we must develop methods to ensure that every student feels comfortable in every class.” All these claims are unfounded and without any real evidence to support them, cannot stand as truth.
Let us begin by addressing the article’s perception that Andover students possess an exclusively masculine vision of leadership. In a school split evenly between male and female students, it is ludicrous to suggest that all Andover students think that a leader should always be male. Without any real evidence to support this claim, we cannot make this negative assumption. I, for one, feel that leaders can be either male or female. Gender, personally, plays no role whatsoever in my political thought process. To generalize a community of 1,100 students as chauvinistic and sexist is unfair.
Next, Burman suggested that our female leaders are not taken seriously. Again, without any real evidence to support this claim, the article unfairly passes judgement on the community. What about Jackie Lender ’11, last year’s Vice President? What about Kerri Lanzo ’11, former Co-President of Model UN? What about Kate Weiner ’11, former Co-President of Philomathean Society? As a freshman, I remember, along with my peers, aspiring to possess even a modicum of the influence which these female leaders possessed and to garner even a sliver of the respect which they commanded. Even right now, there are many females on Student Council and on the boards of some of the most prominent clubs on campus. These strong female leaders, like any strong male leader, have made their respective marks on the Academy. If Andover students do not take their female leaders seriously, how then can Burman explain the ongoing legacies of these women and the countless others that have preceded them?
The article stated that our school has never fully integrated women into its society. From the statement, one would think that women are downtrodden and oppressed members of our community. However, with a female Head of School, a female Associate Head of School, three-fifths of the Cluster Deans as females and female Trustees, I doubt, from an institutional level, that Andover has not integrated women into its society. Indeed, female students hold equal value, both numerically and intrinsically, to their male counterparts. To say that Andover has not embraced women into the community is untrue.
The final controversial premise is the notion that the school has the obligation to ensure every student’s comfort in every class. First of all, the article establishes no precise definition of comfort and the extent to which the school has the obligation to uphold it. If my seat is uncomfortable, am I entitled to a new one? If I don’t feel comfortable with writing a paper, am I entitled to an extension? If someone directs an inappropriate comment my way, which violates my level of “comfort,” should that person be removed from the class? This utopian vision of the perfect classroom is naïve.
Of course the school should discourage sexism. Of course the school should react strongly when female students feel harassed or violated. But to impose upon the Academy the moral obligation to protect everyone’s comfort in every situation is unacceptable.
Now that we have successfully dissected some of the flaws in the article’s reasoning, one question still remains yet answered: why is there a dearth of female leaders? The answer is that girls simply do not run. Of the thirteen primary candidates for Student Council President, only two girls ran; that is 15% for a school composed of 50% girls. The lack of female leadership is neither a result of intimidation from males nor a lack of respect from the community. The fact that girls do not run is merely a reality, not a problem. Students have elected competent, female leaders in the past and will undoubtedly do so again. As Burman eloquently states, leadership positions are determined “on the basis of a candidate’s ability to lead.” A true leader should be able to command respect and power, regardless of gender.
There is, however, a much larger problem. It is a general problem of leadership. Burman’s article advocates for a sex education curriculum to solve this problem, but it misses the point. What we need is leadership education in our curriculum. Andover needs to focus its efforts on creating leaders, both male and female. Integrating general leadership training into our curriculum will perhaps encourage more candidates to run for more offices. But by playing the gender blame game and making incendiary statements, we wallow in a never-ending cycle of complaint and apathy. Therefore, we must all do justice to ourselves and to our Academy by taking leadership seriously and collectively.
Junius Willians is a two-year Lower from Newark, NJ and a Lower Representative.
