Hole In The Wall Gang
By Robert Kauffman
Speech Given at Convocation September 19, 1999

I am honored and somewhat amazed that I am here today. Honored because it is Deerfield. Simple as that. This is such a special place in my life and my heart. I am amazed because I realize the main reason for my being here is my connection to the renewal of coeducation at Deerfield ten years ago. It seems that Mr. Widmer and the faculty think it is time to focus the attention of the school beyond the Bicentennial and I have been given the wonderful opportunity to begin that process. Thank you.

There are many people here today who could give this talk as well as I can. In looking around I see faculty who were part of the process that began in 1987. There are others who played critical roles, but who have moved on to positions in other schools, any number of them as heads of school. To each I say thank you again for all that you meant to me, and I think to Deerfield, at that critical time. Looking at the decision today, in our collective rear view mirror, it does not seem that it should have been terribly difficult. But I recall that that was not the case in 1987 and 1988. We worked long hours and there were times when we were uncertain we had the right answers.

I want also take this moment to thank the students of Deerfield. The sagacity of the decision that was made 10 years ago, has been, and will continue to be, in the compendium of your achievements. From all that I can ascertain, it is the students of Deerfield who have made the decision-makers look very wise indeed. Thanks also for being here today. It is reassuring and supportive that you chose Convocation, as I know you had a choice of afternoon activities. Although I hope my remarks will be interesting or informative to everyone, it is my intention to direct them primarily to you, the student body.

When I became headmaster in 1980, probably about 3 students here today had been born. Realizing this, let me begin the story of Deerfield's return to coeducation with a little history, to give you some context for the process we undertook and the issues we faced.

The modern Deerfield began in 1902 when Frank Boyden took over as headmaster. At that time, the school had about 16 students. As had been the case in the prior 100 or so years of its existence there were boys and girls enrolled, although as Boyden took over, Deerfield was a day school. Under Mr. and Mrs. Boyden, Deerfield evolved into a school modeled after the great English schools, like Rugby. Part of that evolution was to begin a boarding department about the time of WWI. That was also the beginning of the all boy direction of the school. Through 1948 or so, the only girls who attended Deerfield were day students and, at that time, their numbers may have been as small as 15 in a school of about 400. After 1948, Deerfield was a single gender school, as were, by the way, all the other leading New England Preparatory schools of the day. Cultural and social convention of the time simply did not imagine that a boarding school should or could be coeducational.

The Boydens built an extraordinary community and the alumni were devoted to it. The strong feeling of alumni loyalty probably had a lot to do with the fact that Deerfield became the last of the pre-eminent, all-boy, New England boarding schools to return to coeducation. Rigorous academic work, spirited teams imbued with a rock solid commitment to sportsmanship, a great musical tradition, a strong sense of community, and great friendships all were the stuff of legend at Deerfield. The commitment to the well being of the individual student in the context of the greater good of the entire community was immutable. It was such a potent mix in the memories of those who attended, that many simply did not want to tinker with the recipe for fear of losing the magic. Often I heard from loyal alums, young and old, that any significant change in the composition of the student body would ruin the place. When the final decision was announced at Sunday dinner on that day in 1988, 75-100 students stomped out of the dining hail in protest and the next week I had my share of angry mail. It wasn't so much an anti-girl sentiment as it was a pro Deerfield sentiment. This was an understandable, but emotional reaction, based on wonderful memories of a place much loved and revered. However, it neglected some of the realities that were beginning to overtake education in general and Deerfield in particular. Mr. Boyden retired in 1968 after serving for 66 years as headmaster. Boyden's mark on the school was indelible. Each building, each alumnus, every dollar in the endowment, each key tradition and all school songs had come into being under his incredible headmastership. When my predecessor arrived in 1968, ready to consider timely and needed changes in the recipe, he faced a formidable challenge. Emotions would run high, and in the next ten years, David Pynchon would twice lose the trustee vote for coeducation.

America was changing in the late 60s and the 70s, especially the place and role of the younger generation. Environmental activism, anti war protests, the emergence of a drug culture and a significant alteration in the relationships between the sexes were but a few of the major developments taking place. Those tectonic shifts were upsetting to many of the older generation but there seemed little they could do to control events. Therefore, the proposal to voluntarily rearrange the chemistry of Deerfield, to tinker with what alumni and many long term faculty saw as the magic recipe of Frank and Helen Boyden, was not in the cards.

The result, by the end of the 1970s was a fracture in the alumni body, a palpable split in the faculty and a divided board (The second vote for coeducation in 1977 reportedly lost by a trustee vote of 12-11).

When I arrived in 1980 the dust of that second vote still swirled in the air. It was clear that the topic of coeducation would be all consuming, if it were to be engaged officially again. In comment to the faculty during my first September I said: "Coeducation is a very emotional topic and it is my judgment that to re-engage it in the short term would serve only to defer discussion of other issues of equal importance". (Later, with trustee support, that short-term moratorium on consideration of coeducation became officially 5 years.) Discussion of coeducation at Deerfield was, for at least that period of time, squarely on the back burner.

By 1987, many of the issues that had been ignored at the close of the Boyden era or superceded by consideration of coeducation in the 70s had been confronted and many were successfully addressed and solved. That list included significant improvements in faculty compensation and housing quality, the creation of a first-rate facility for music, theatre and art, and growth in the size of Deerfield's endowment to provide enhanced scholarship resources for a more diverse student body, among others.

By 1987, the stage was set and the board voted to appoint a faculty/trustee committee to study coeducation at Deerfield. In a letter to the entire Deerfield Family in May, 1987, the President of the Alumni Association, the Chairman of the Trustees and I wrote: "Each of us supports this plan because we believe that the issue of overriding importance is the quality of the educational experience for students at Deerfield. The Board had decided to pursue this investigation (of Coeducation) because no trustee is willing to risk that quality in the future. Indeed, our obligation is to be certain that the future is as good as the past--and better if we can make it so." The coeducation wheels were set in motion for a third time in 15 years.

Several critical concerns now faced the school which had not been a significant part of the equation in the earlier considerations of coeducation. By 1980, virtually all of Deerield's natural competitors had become coeducational. By some, Deerfield was not viewed simply as a dinosaur, but one of the last of the dinosaurs. The role of women was changing in America and it became more and more difficult to explain and to justify our all-male status. For example, we found it a challenge to recruit the best new faculty needed to remain in the top tier of boarding schools. Given a choice, those faculty educated in colleges during the 60s and 70s simply chose positions offered at schools that were comparable in every way to Deerfield except that the others were coeducational.

A second key area involved married faculty, specifically those already teaching at Deerfleld. In 1960, only 25% of faculty here were married. By 1985, just 25 years later, that number was nearly 75%. Faculty children added to the joy and the fabric of this community. Even though we developed a program to subsidize the costs of secondary education for female children of our faculty, it seemed anachronistic to require them to go to Andover or Taft or even, heaven forbid, to Choate or Hotchkiss, while most faculty sons attended Deerfield.

The school also began to see a decline in the numbers and the quality of applicants. Between 1977 and 1987 (the ten years between the second vote on coeducation and this third consideration) the applicant pool had fallen by 33%. Although there was never a danger of failing to fill the school, the trend was unsettling. In addition, it was becoming increasingly clear that the best applicants, once admitted to Deerfield, frequently elected to go elsewhere. My memory is that more than 80% of those who were judged to be in the top third of our admitted group were electing to go to other schools.

Further studies, conducted primarily by personal interview with administrators at middle schools which regularly sent candidates to Deerfield indicated that the strongest potential applicants from those schools were not even considering Deerfield and that the overwhelming reason for those personal decisions was the single gender status of the school.

There were other signs as well. By the early 80s, we saw a decline in the number of applications from alumni children. That might have been a result of demographic factors having nothing to do with Deerfield. But when the yield on those legacies admitted to Deerfield also began to decline, it was a signal that even the loyalists (or their children) were beginning to make the decision for coeducational experiences. And, as the quality of incoming students began to erode, we also sensed a change in the college choices available to graduating seniors.

Lastly, the school began to realize that those steps taken during the 70s and early 80s to provide a strong female voice in the curriculum were simply not viable. Nearly one-quarter of all the teaching at Deerfield, when it was still all boys, was done with great competence by a strong cadre of female teachers. Some of them are here today. But it became increasingly obvious that that voice had to come from student colleagues. Each curricular and extra-curricular program was diminished by this reality. And arrangements with neighboring all girl institutions were proving to be wholly unsatisfactory or unworkable. No one of these factors was enough to convince the trustees that a change should be made at Deerfield. But the combination seemed to point, without question, to the risks the school would be taking with its tradition of quality if it continued to ignore the world around it.

The process undertaken by the Committee to Study Coeducation (the CSC) was extremely critical. It was essential that it be open and candid so that each person could voice an opinion and review the evidence. At the same time, the outcome of the deliberation was unclear and during the process of the review itself, the school would potentially be developing and openly discussing information that would highlight the weaknesses mentioned earlier. If the vote ultimately was to remain all boys, then the process itself could prove extremely damaging. Conversely, to make the process a closed one engendered all the natural reactions of skepticism. This was Deerfield's third encounter with the question of coeducation. Virtually everyone thought it would be the last for many, many years regardless of the outcome. But it was, all the same, one of considerable risk. After 10 months of study, the CSC, recommended to the full Board of Trustees on January 30, 1988, that Deerfield move with all due speed to admit girls to the student body.

There was a sense of confidence at the time of the Trustee vote that the recommendation would be accepted. But there were powerful forces at work trying to affect the outcome and several highly regarded and visible members of the trustees had not declared themselves before the vote. The outcome was enough in doubt that we printed 10,000 copies of a letter to be sent to the alumni stating the following: "Dear Members of the Deerfield Family: At its winter meeting on January 30, the Deerfield Board of Trustees concluded its discussions of the question of coeducation and voted that the school remain all-male for the foreseeable future." Fortunately, the 20-2 affirmative vote meant that letter was not sent. A second letter, announcing the return to coeducation had also been prepared and was mailed instead.

We began immediately a process of implementation that took 18 months before the first girls arrived as students in September, 1989. There were about six committees charged with making recommendations to a steering committee, on every subject we thought might have some bearing on our success at integrating girls into the community. We worked to decide what the ratios would be and how fast we would get to those ratios. We talked in each department about the possible differences in learning styles between boys and girls. And we talked about ways to give strong voices of leadership to girls from day one, without appearing to play favorites. There were some weighty issues with which we wrestled.

There were others that seemed less critical, but the sum of the smaller ones became important as well. Menus in the dining room, mirror sizes in dorm rooms, appropriate changing areas in locker rooms were addressed. One of the most vexing topics became how to reword the school song, which had been sung by generations of alumni known as "The Sons of Deerfield". We took every opportunity to explore what had been done at other schools. We copied what we thought was best and tried to avoid the mistakes. But key in the tapestry we were creating were three decisions:

1. We decided that the size of the school research showed that the special feeling of Deerfield and its effectiveness as a caring and supportive place - what I began to call its ethos-had numerous origins. But the key among those was the capacity of the school to get together as a unit on a frequent basis. This decision put a huge pressure on male admissions and ultimately on aspects of boys' teams, but preserved, I think, the essential character or ethos of the school.
2. The school would move as quickly as possible to a position of effective parity. That became a three year plan and it demonstrated to prospective applicants and their families that Deerfield was intent on not being a boys school that admitted some girls, but that it would be assiduous in transforming itself into a bonafide home for students of both genders. Parity included parity in the physical facilities available to girls which were to be made as equivalent as possible to those available to boys, and that level was to be reached BEFORE the first girls enrolled in September, 1989.
3. We did everything possible to avoid the early notions of tokenism. Rather than assigning one girl to each class or section, we tried to put together classes that were half girls and half boys, leaving some sections all male, while the number of girls was still small. The same logic prevailed for table assignments in the dining ball. Girls' athletics began, from day one, as an attempt to achieve parity with boys' programs. From the outset, girls played on varsity teams against varsity teams. The early successes of these teams, when there were only 100 or so girls enrolled, were important in the assimilation of girls into the culture of the school. In all areas of school life girls were to be included in everything, excluded from nothing.

How can one evaluate the last ten years? Was it the right decision for Deerfield?

Just as there was no single factor that led to the decision to return to coeducation, there is no single factor that can be used to prove the wisdom of the decision. But there are so many indicators that point in the same direction it is impossible to convince me that the decision was anything but correct. A few examples:

Admissions numbers are up in every category since the mid 80s (the number of applicants is about twice the number in 1987) and the quality and diversity of the entering classes for the past 10 years has improved with regularity. Few would deny that today Deerfield is harder to get into than ten years ago and few would argue that the student body is not more capable, top to bottom.
Although it is only one measure of quality, it would appear that colleges agree with that assessrnent. In 1981, 59% of seniors were admitted to Ivy or other most and highly selective colleges. By 1988 that number had risen slightly to about 67%. For the last two Deerfield classes the number has settled at a figure close to 90%.
Today, hiring faculty seems a relatively easy task because the numbers are so small each year. That suggests that teaching here is viewed positively, and some of that positive feeling comes from a teacher's judgment that he or she is teaching in a place that respects the life of the mind. Student quality is very much a part of that evaluation.
All indications are that curricular and extra-curricular programs are as good as they have ever been. My conversations with faculty who have been here for 20 years or more confirm that the arts program is better than ever. Dance, which did not exist ten years ago, apparently now includes a faculty troupe. The SPEECHES are more vital, community service is thriving, and yet Deerfield continues to have its share of strong athletic teams, including quite appropriately, the girls' teams.
At the same time, the alumni appear to feel that the sum of what is happening here remains quite special and is supporting the school in an unprecedented fashion through the current capital campaign, which had raised more money for the school than at any time in the past and it is not over!!
And, it seems as though coeducation is working inside Deerfield on a daily basis. The special honors awarded by the school, seem to be balanced between boys and girls. In places where there was some concern regarding the school's ability to provide a strong and nurturing climate for girls, there are signs of success. Math enrollments, for example, were an area of special early concern. Not only will this year's advanced Calculus class be the largest in the history of the school, about 40% of those enrolled are girls. There have been slightly more girls than boys who have become Class Agents for the last nine graduating classes and girls have been slightly more likely than boys to make a gift to the Annual Fund of the school. Although these are not absolute or unarguable signals of the success of coeducation, they are, in my mind, accurate indicators that the early years have been about as good as could have been imagined.

Why, one might ask, was this such a wrenching decision for Deerfield? As we look back ten years on a change that seems demonstrably to have improved the place of this school in today's world, why was Deerfield so late in making the change? Maybe it is illustrative to close with a reflection of my personal decision making process which may help in answering the larger question. In 1980, I had no mandate to make the school coeducational. It might even be said that the power and authority on the Board at that time wanted to maintain the status quo if at all possible. My mind was open, but pedagogically I was far from feeling that a change was essential. As the evidence mounted that I was on the bridge of ship that may have had some worrisome holes below the water line, there was an overwhelming sense of obligation to do what was best for Deerfield. But I desperately did not want to be responsible for a fundamental shift in Deerfield's special spirit or the loyalty of its students, faculty and alumni.

During the CSC study, it became crucial to me to summarize, in succinct terms, those qualities and activities that were fundamental to the tradition of the school, and to minimize those which were more superficial. In a letter to the entire alumni body about a month after the Trustees' decision, I posed the question which had become the one that worried me the most. "Can we make this change and not lose what is unique about Deerfield?"

And then I gave my own answer: "We have been a boys' school for so long that it is tempting to imagine that the special ethos of Deerfield is inextricably intertwined with its maleness. As a result of the deliberations of the CSC, I do not now believe that the one is wholly dependent on the other. The hallmarks of this school are its strong sense of community, the care exhibited by adults toward maturing adolescents, the faculty commitment to the place and well being of the individual, the high academic and personal standards to which students are held and the spirit of the students and their loyalty to the school. Those traits come from our commitment to certain beliefs and traditions, which need not change in a coeducational setting, including small dormitory corridors run by full time faculty, frequent all-school meetings and family-style meals, and a willingness to expose young people to standards and expectations which we, as adults, feel are important. Upon reflection, I have concluded that these important hallmarks of Deerfield are not gender based. Certainly, the school will change as it becomes coeducational. But the fear that we will lose our distinctive quality-the ethos which in the hearts and minds of Deerfield alumni separates us from most other schools -- seems unwarranted."

It was this realization that made me feel not just comfortable, but enthusiastic, about the change. Nothing in the intervening ten years, and nothing that any loyal member of Deerfield has ever said, even those who were originally not in favor of coeducation, has led me to any other conclusion.

Your school has been a significant force in the lives of those who have gone here for generations before you for reasons that did not change because of the re-introduction of coeducation. The obligation you inherit is to sustain what is worthy and special, and to ignore those who warn that any change is a threat to the essence of the school. But the crucial words in that statement are: "to sustain what is worthy and special". The burden you face is to be sure you know what those elements are and then to be steadfast is defending them. If my comments today, about the way the coeducation decision was made, leave you with that postulate, then it has been my double good fortune to have been with you this afternoon. Have a wonderful school year. Make it the best ever for yourselves and for the school. Thank you.