Where Wellesley Went Wrong

WELLESLEY College's choice of Barbara Bush as its commencement speaker has sparked a controversy about feminism and the role of women in the 1990's. The invitation sends a contradictory message to students at the women's college, who have been educated to believe that a woman's merit derives from her own talents, not the ring around her finger.

Wellesley President Nan Keohane sees no such ambiguity. In response to a protest petition signed by more than 150 students, she argued that motherhood and a commitment to family life--which Barbara Bush epitomizes--are valid choices for women. Even feminists, she contends, should define themselves through their relationships as well as their occupations.

It is difficult to debate such a position, because it is true. As Keohane sees it, though, the argument is largely a "generational thing"; Barbara Bush just chose the typical route of a certain class of women in her generation.

Yet, to resort to the cliche that the First Lady "just didn't have the options we had" is to resort to the obvious; to argue that the controversy is a "generational thing" is utterly simplistic.

IT IS a generational thing. But is also a political thing. The reason why we have so many options today is because we have the option of motherhood. Birth control and access to legal abortions have given us the ability to define ourselves through our careers, our children or our marriage--or any combination of the three--because we can choose at which point we want any one of those options.

The Reagan and Bush Administrations have been quite adamant in curtailing those alternatives.

Attempts to overrule or subvert Roe v. Wade have been reiterated by both Presidents, and a younger, more conservative Supreme Court may just follow suit.

The administration opposes sex education and access to contraception, fearing that it promotes sexual promiscuity. It denies funding to international organizations that hope to curb overpopulation through medical attention and information concerning abortion. It promises to undermine attempts to legalize RU486--the French morning after pill--in the United States.

Bush's administration does nothing about the growing difficulties facing women like homelessness, children living in poverty, single parent households and discrimination in the workplace. Bush even promised to veto a bill that would require large firms to grant maternity and paternity leave--essential benefits in the era of the working family. Barbara Bush's solution of "volunteerism"--her "thousand points of light"--is an option only of the upper middle class.

ALIGNING Barbara Bush's flaws with George Bush's flaws might be regarded as sexism. It is not. Wellesley invited Barbara Bush to Wellesley only because she is identified with the Bush Administration. Any other adult literacy advocate would have been ignored. Criticism of the Bush record on women, then, includes criticism of Barbara Bush.

Recently, it has been rumored that Barbara Bush may be more liberal than her husband. News reports even hinted that the Bush family was seriously divided between those who Roe'd and those who Wade'd.

Such rumors are purposeful leaks that attempt to make George Bush look less conservative on abortion. Little gets out of the White House that Chief of Staff John Sununu doesn't want out of the White House. The political controversies surrounding recent setbacks in abortion rights make Republicans a bit nervous being wholeheartedly anti-abortion. People might believe that George Bush is more liberal if we believe that his wife is more liberal.

If Barbara Bush agrees with the administration and its anti-abortion philosophy, she has no right to speak to Wellesley women about the choices that they have living in the 1990's. If Barbara Bush disagrees with the administration, if the rumors are true and she is keeping quiet, then she still has no place at Wellesley; independence of mind is not only the lesson of a women's education, it is the lesson of a liberal arts education.

Political insiders will contend that Barbara Bush could not speak her own mind even if she did disagree with her husband, the President; that, they will argue, is not the proper role of the First Lady.

It is the role, however, of a generation of women struggling to define feminism in a society with many options available to them. No wonder Wellesley students only narrowly chose the novelist Alice Walker (who declined the invitation) over Barbara Bush when electing a graduation speaker. Alice Walker represents the intellect who is recognized for her products on the written page; Barbara Bush is the matriarch who is recognized by her volunteerism and commitment to family. Something in both Walker and Bush appeals to young women.

Wellesley protestors have been called "immature" and "childish." They are not; this is not just a "generational thing." If some Wellesley women define themselves through their wedding ring, that is their option. If some prefer another route, that, too, is their option. The key is the choice between them. To invite a woman who opposes such choices is where Wellesley went wrong.