Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945 - 1965. Reviewed by Lisa Rudi, University of Pennsylvania

Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press Pp. 280         ISBN 0-8018-8261-3

Reviewed by Lisa Rudi
University of Pennsylvania

April 9, 2009

In Higher Education for Women in Postwar America: 1945-1965, Linda Eisenmann strives to “reinterpret an era often denigrated for its lack of attention to women” (p. 8) through an examination of their progress in the field of higher education. Her work centers on the questions of why women were considered “incidental students” (p. 5) during this time and what advocacy efforts were made on their behalf. Using an institutional lens, Eisenmann sets out to redefine women’s activism and explore the quiet form of feminism that emerged in the postwar era.

Higher Education for Women in Postwar America: 1945-1965 is presented in three parts. Part One focuses on “Ideologies” in which Eisenmann defines four that influenced women’s behavior: patriotic, economic, cultural and psychological. The effects of these ideologies are woven throughout the book and explain the conflicting messages received by women as they stressed the significance of women’s domestic roles while encouraging their participation in the workforce (defined throughout the book as “womanpower”). Her examination of postwar higher education for women at the undergraduate, graduate, faculty and administrative levels reveals that their presence became secondary on campus as veterans returned and funding was directed to large research institutions where their role was ancillary. Though their enrollment numbers increased, their percentage of the college population declined. Eisenmann concludes this section by defining three responses from educators that shaped women’s education - economic utilitarians, cultural conformists, and equity-based planners – and how these groups struggled to find ways to reconcile women’s home and work responsibilities in order “to support women’s choices without limiting their opportunities” (p.82).

Part Two, entitled “Explorations”, evaluates the advocacy efforts for women in three realms: research, practice, and policy. Eisenmann explores each area by focusing on particular women’s organizations. The research chapter is dedicated to the formation and objectives of the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Commission on the Education of Women (CEW). While the CEW produced a modest research base on women’s education, Eisenmann illustrates how they struggled with fundraising due limited support for the cause. The practice chapter contains thorough assessments of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and the National Association of Deans of Women (NADW) and their struggles with establishing curriculum, internal racial integration, and maintaining their professional presence on campus. The concluding policy chapter addresses the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (PCWS) and its production of the American Women report. The report unsuccessfully sought to clarify a balance between home and work life though it did ultimately allow for women to have options regarding both. Eisenmann summarizes the inability of organizations to initiate significant changes by concluding that this was a time when “individual choice, rather than collective action, marked women’s decision making” (p. 175).

Part Three, “Responses”, addresses the continuing education movement for women. The first chapter details the development of four continuing education programs (University of Minnesota, Sarah Lawrence College, Radcliffe College, and the University of Michigan) and tells the stories of the influential women who founded them, such as Mary Bunting and Esther Raushenbush. The diversity of the programs and the varied populations they served “wove together patriotic, economic, cultural, and psychological ideologies by providing ways for women to resume schooling while still fulfilling their roles as wives and mothers” (p. 180). The following chapter provided an overall critique of women’s continuing education leading Eisenmann to conclude that while the movement had limitations such as the lack of degree completion, by providing access to older female students and supporting those women who sought advanced degrees, these programs were “for its time, a large step forward on behalf of women” (p. 227)

Eisenmann’s work is significant because it provides a fresh view of the role of women during a period in which their presence in higher education appeared to be marginal. She seeks to purge this era of the disdain accorded it by later feminists because of its supposed lack of activism. Drawing on a large variety of sources, ranging from Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique to commission meeting minutes and publications, Eisenmann successfully identifies the many efforts made on behalf of and by women in the realm of higher education. Her defining ideologies provide a context explaining why women chose the path they did; they converge to ultimately elucidate why these actions were in fact moderate expressions of feminism reflective of their era.

Higher Education for Women in Postwar America: 1945-1965 is focused on the experiences of white, middle to upper class women, a fact Eisenmann defends through the assertion that they constituted the majority of the higher education population of the time. Though she does address issues of racial integration within women’s organizations and repeatedly acknowledge the fact that poor (often minority) women did not have the same choices as the white middle class, there is a gaping hole regarding the plight of these female populations during this era. Eisenmann’s use of the institutional lens is understandable given the vastness of her topic but the lack of personal narratives from the collective women’s voice of that time, save for a few of the founders of individual programs or key players in commissions, leaves one wondering how women truly experienced higher education and integration into the workforce. Eisenmann’s approach to this era feels somewhat disjointed yet this could be a reflection on the complexity of the subject matter. In her discussion of the CEW, Eisenmann notes that their struggle to define their goals and work direction was “revealing [of] the era’s confusion about how best to address women’s concerns” (p. 93), a message that prevails throughout her work.

Eisenmann’s work is unique because no other work specifically addresses women’s role in higher education in America during this particular 20 year postwar period. Her revisionist approach is rare in that she strives to reinterpret women’s efforts during this time as opposed to just dismissing them. Though not specifically addressing the postwar era, Dorothy Moss’s Gender, Space and Time: Women and Higher Education (2006) is complementary in exploring how women struggled to combine higher education with domestic duties but it is focused on individual women (opposed to Eisenmann’s institutional lens) and is grounded in feminist enquiry. Elizabeth Allan’s Policy Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing Women’s Status addresses women’s commissions but focuses on the late 60’s and beyond. John Mack Faragher and Florence Howe’s collection of essays entitled Women and Higher Education in American History glosses over the 1950’s with a few sentences about women’s declining percentages in student and faculty numbers. While Eisenmann’s work has its limits, it is an essential read for those who truly seek to understand the complicated role of women and their place in higher education in the post-war period.

References

Allan, E. (2008). Policy discourses, gender and education: Constructing women’s status. New York: Routledge

Faragher, J.M. & Howe, F. (Eds.). (1988). Women and higher education in American history. New York: W.W. Norton and Company

Moss, D. (2006). Gender, space and time: Women and higher education. Maryland: Lexington Books

About the Reviewer

Lisa Rudi
Graduate School of Education
The University of Pennsylvania

Lisa Rudi completed her bachelor's degree at Lehigh University and is currently a master's candidate in Higher Education Management at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include higher education public policy issues at the state, federal and international levels.