Do you believe male-female ratio was the root of the female students’ discontent? Why or why not? What other factors do you feel played into the women’s unhappiness with the status quo?

The male-female ratio at Yale seemed to be an enormous sticking point. A member of the Human Sexuality Committee stated that it was discussed as a “cause and scapegoat for social adjustment problems on campus.” Do you believe this disparity was the root of the female students’ discontent? Why or why not? What other factors do you feel played into the women’s unhappiness with the status quo?

I think that had the administration provided more support the male-female ratio wouldn't have been as major an issue as it turned out to be. As it was, it seems like they bowed to pressure and said, "OK, fine, we'll admit some women." Box checked, task completed. There was no follow-up; the folks who could make decisions or changes seemed to simply ignore the women once they were actually on campus.

There were a number of issues that the women had to deal with, obviously, but I believe it was easier for the administration, staff, and peers to turn a blind eye when only a fraction of the population were suffering, especially in silence. With more women on campus, there would have been more attention to their own needs, safety, treatment and overall fairness.

I think the root cause of the female students' discontent was exactly what Kimk mentioned above. Yes, Yale relented (eye roll) and admitted women, but they did not otherwise prepare. Women were excluded from extra curriculars, the 1000 male leaders were downright lecherous at weekend dances, and campus safety was not even a thing. Due to the decision to separate the 250 women between the 12 different colleges, many of Yale's first class of women did not even know one another. They were isolated- -on campus, in class, on weekends. They may not have even known that their classmates were being raped or harassed. It was easy for the administration to overlook the "complaints" or concerns. 75% of the student body didn't have any. By increasing the enrollment numbers of women, it would have been harder for Yale to ignore what wasn't working. They may have been forced to take action sooner in addressing the problems and their closed mindsets.

I think they gave in to pressure to admit women because acceptance rates were dropping. And Princeton and Harvard were getting the best students. With this minimal enrollment, they could at least advertise that some women were there. It takes a special personality to be so isolated and alone. So the ratio was a definite inhibiting factor.

Yes the fact that there were so few women admitted kept their concerns from being taken seriously. I was surprised that the many of the incoming freshmen were so taken with the fact that they had been accepted, that they failed to inquire if they could play sports or join the band etc. Perhaps those pursuits were taken for granted in accepting.

Considering that there is generally strength in numbers, I would say that the small number of women was probably the root of the problem, but the perfect storm of stubborn administrators, chauvinists in positions of power, and a general reluctance to even validate the women's concerns (let alone step up and make timely changes) definitely did not help.

I don't think the ratio of men vs women was the issue. When I went to college in 1968, I attended a large public college. I thought I'd like the ratio, which at the time had 10 men to every women. It was fun. Always something to do, had dates, lots of attention. But we were all in one dorm, so the women were able to make friends, pack together. The problem at Yale was two fold (in my opinion), they left women isolated and spread out in the different colleges. The loneliness must have been debilitating. And secondly, they were not willing to redesign the school to ensure the safety of those women. Which was appalling. Perhaps they felt the women would be scared away and then the issue of more women would disappear. The lack of regard was unconscionable.