FREE SPEECH ZONE:

Neely Woods Hunter

By Focusing on a Name Change, MUW President is Short-Sighted:

By Neely Woods Hunter, MUW Class of '95

April 28, 2009 - As I’ve read and reread Dr. Claudia Limbert’s article from the Local Voices section of Sunday’s paper (Limbert Speaks, April 26), it’s occurred to me that the focus on MUW of late has been on all the wrong topics. Since April 2006, the day after Homecoming, the topic of conversation has been about Claudia Limbert and her rift with the alumnae and alumni of this great university. Whether speaking of her handling of “personnel matters,” questions about the Foundation processes, actions of individual members of the original Alumnae Association, the disaffiliation of that association, the disingenuous creation of a new association, the litigation that followed, or now the proposal for a new name for The W – we’ve all managed to keep the conversation focused on superfluous issues and not the real one at hand.

The real issue before us is not the name of this great university, but the national historic legacy of this great university that's being lost in the homogenization process being sold to us as “rebranding.” Mississippi University for Women, formerly Mississippi State College for Women, formally the Industrial Institute & College for the Education of White Girls was the first public institution dedicated to the collegiate education of women in our nation! This is not a fact to be embarrassed by or tossed aside – it’s one to be championed, protected, and honored.

Limbert speaks of MUW’s name being an issue for the past 27 years. Her reasoning being that the mandate that the school become co-ed made the name essentially obsolete. Yet, she ignores the fact that the mandate was a 5-4 decision with a strongly worded dissent encouraging all not to forget or ignore the value of single-sex education in either the State of Mississippi or the nation. The ruling changed the enrollment requirements – it did not change the mission. Thus, the name was no more obsolete the day after the ruling that it was the day before the ruling.

Limbert speaks of MUW being in the midst of an identity crisis when she assumed the helm referring to a study that was done prior to her arrival. She claims that study supported this when, in fact, that study simply addressed the factors affecting why students chose – and chose not - to attend MUW. The university wasn’t in the midst of an identity crisis – it was Mississippi University for Women, a coed university with an historic women’s mission. If students were confused it was by the administration's mixed messages in its marketing, not the name itself. Adequate marketing materials in the hands of an appropriate number of admissions recruiters would have explained the uniqueness of the university, the role the university played in history, the benefits of such a university for women and men alike. Instead impersonal and poorly targeted marketing materials ignore the historic mission of this fine university and leave potential students confused.

Limbert speaks of increased marketing efforts and their success in increasing enrollment from 2,100 students in 2002 to 2,400 students in 2009. She does not speak of the fact that this figure is nearly 1000 students fewer than were enrolled in 1997. She does not speak of the fact that all 13% of the general budget that is supposedly being spent on marketing and recruiting is being wasted on a geographically based recruiting model (and likely includes many functions other than just recruiting). The localized primary recruiting area currently targeted by MUW's admissions efforts is simply not an adequate base from which to draw students to a unique university such as MUW.

Limbert speaks of the 3% of women nationwide who indicate an interest in a women’s university as if that is a hindrance to growth at MUW. 3% of female graduating high school seniors is approximately 50,000 students nationwide – 50,000 potential MUW students and we’re not even counting the males who might be interested! If the MUW marketing effort could capture just a small number of those 50,000 potential students, they could double their current enrollment of incoming freshmen. Of course, they’d have to quit spending that 13% of the budget solely on geographic recruiting and refocus it to interest-based recruiting – a significant shift in philosophy but not an impossibility with today’s technological options. In previous articles and speeches, Limbert has also referred to the “fact” that those 3% of potential students are looking for an all-women’s university, which the W is not, and a locale that isn’t affected by “the Mississippi factor.” This is her spin on that “data” and I would challenge her, or anyone else, to find proof of this statement beyond their conjecture. Those students said they would consider a women's college; obviously they did not all mandate a women's college! With only 60 women's colleges in the country, I can comfortably reason that the majority of those 50,000 potential students however would be intrigued by the idea of an affordable (public!), predominantly female university with a women’s mission. (I was one of those students in 1990. I was looking for a women’s university. The ones to which I was accepted were not affordable for me and my family and the scholarships offered me were insufficient to allow me to attend. I discovered The W in a college catalog and was intrigued by what I found. I wasn’t turned off by a co-ed student body or by its location in NE Mississippi.)

Limbert speaks of three universities that have reached success after removing women from their names. She does not speak of the fact that none of these three universities has maintained their original women’s mission. So, yes, they’ve succeeded after a name change, but they’ve ceased to serve their historic roots. Limbert has claimed repeatedly that her proposal and effort to change the name of MUW does not equal a change in mission, yet every example she gives of why it must be changed contradicts this statement. To change the name to attract more men will change the make-up of the student body which will significantly change the atmosphere that is conducive to fostering a women’s mission. To change the name to attract women not otherwise interested in a women’s university or a predominantly female university will change the mindset of the student body which will significantly change the atmosphere that is conducive to fostering a women’s mission. To change the name to hide the mission is tantamount to changing the mission itself.

Notice Limbert did not speak of Randolph-Macon Women’s College renamed Randolph College in 2007 upon the recommendation of the same company that conducted The W “name change” study prior to her arrival on campus. This notable redaction could be because Randolph College’s enrollment has significantly decreased since its name change.

Limbert speaks of the “thoughtful and transparent” 20/20 Visioning process, Name Change Committee process, and Cirlot managed test-marketing that have led us down this name change path as if putting vague and misleading documents on a website somehow gives them credence and validity. I’ve read the 20/20 documents and I see no evidence that a name change is indicated. I see a lot of discussion stating that the name, alone, is confusing. That tells me that The W needs a new marketing and recruiting plan, not a new name. I see references to studies that they claim say support a new name: the pre-Limbert study which indicated that prospective students assumed by the name that MUW was all female, the Chronicles of Higher Ed study which stated that only 3% of prospective female students were interested in a women’s university, and now their own 20/20 “research” and paid surveys of Mississippi high school students. None of these were actual studies about the validity of name change. If one reads closely it is obvious that a predetermined conclusion (name change!) was fostered in each event. The charade has reached new levels as we learn that the names recommended by its thoughtful and transparent Name Change committee were not acceptable – seems they didn’t choose the predetermined name (Welty!) as the administration hoped they would.

Limbert has spoken about her solicitation of the Columbus business community and other groups for their input as if that is somehow the only input that is needed. When told the options are name change or institutional failure, these entities passed the requested resolutions in support of a name change. They voted to support MUW, not a name change! Granted she’s sought input of alumnae and alumni – but only those that agree with her or are under her authority as employees of MUW, the rest have been blatantly ignored and/or labeled as troublemakers. MUW’s legacy is important beyond the City of Columbus, beyond Lowndes County, beyond the State of Mississippi. Mississippi University for Women holds national historical significance. Fortunately, the responsibility of such a decision and monumental change is not being placed solely upon those with geographical ties but lies in the hands of the Mississippi Legislature.

Many of the articles, editorials, blogs, and responses to such regarding a name change for MUW have sought to discredit the university’s significance by challenging its original name: Industrial Institute & College for the Education of White Girls. Sadly, such statements prove that critics don’t always know their history. IIC for WG was not created to exclude black girls. It was created to include white girls! At the time, there were Mississippi universities for white men, black men and women, but not white women.

I applied to MUW in 1990. I attended from 1991-1995 and graduated from the Honors program (now the Honors College). I was excited to find a university that suited my needs: predominantly female, affordable, small, liberal arts, beautiful, with a fantastic history and reputation. I was proud of my university then and I’m proud of it now for its past, present, and future. I’ve always wondered why its unique qualities have been viewed as hindrances rather than selling points. A small, public, liberal arts, co-ed university with a women’s mission only has an identity crisis when one tries to sell it as a small, public, liberal arts, traditionally co-ed university to those seeking as much.

It’s seems to me the only real identity crisis The W has ever had is that its administration has not embraced its niche-market attributes. Rather than trying to change MUW's name, I suggest that Dr. Limbert focus on using that 13% of the general budget trying to sell it to the appropriate demographic of prospective students as the small, public, liberal arts, co-ed university with a women’s mission that it is!