Women in South Carolina Politics

 

Carol Sears Botsch

Associate Professor of Political Science

University of South Carolina Aiken

 

 

Introduction: The Invisible Majority

 

More than half of the population of South Carolina is female. Technically speaking, women are not a minority group. But women held little power before there was a women’s rights movement in the US, and they still hold little power today. In terms of their impact on SC’s political process, they almost seem to be invisible. To borrow from the title of a popular text, women have long been political “outsiders.”[1]  Political leaders did not and to some extent still do not see women as a separate group with special problems and needs that the political system must address. Most women didn’t see themselves as a separate group either, at least on most issues. Even today, they often think of themselves first in terms of some other group identification, such as ethnicity or religion or ideology. Until about a generation ago, even scholars paid little attention to the roles and experiences of women. In this chapter, we will explore some of the reasons why South Carolina’s women have been slow to gain political power and examine the changes that are taking place.

 

Certainly women’s lives are immeasurably better in many respects than were those of their mothers and grandmothers. But a gap remains between women and men on many social, political, and economic indicators. In American society, we always look at what kind of job an individual holds and how much one earns to determine status and quality of life. That women tend to earn less than men or hold lower-level jobs is not news. But there are still some surprises. Because most teachers are female, one might expect that most administrators in the education field would be women. However, in South Carolina women comprise 84 percent of the kindergarten to 12th grade teachers, and they account for just 14 percent of the school superintendents. Most principals are men (Collins “In education,” 2000, B1, 7). What does this tell us?

 

Another illustration is indicative of how things are.  Recent studies of state government employment show that white males, who comprise about 30 percent of state employees, also comprise about 60 percent of the people who earn over $50,000 a year. White women, who comprise about one third of the state work force, account for 29 percent of the higher paid state employees and are beginning to approach parity on this one indicator, although few hold the top-level positions. Minority women do not fare as well, bearing the double burden of race and gender. African-American men and women comprise two-thirds of the state employees earning less than $21,000 per year although they comprise only one-third of all state employees (Bauerlein “Best state jobs,” 2001, A1, 5; Harris and Bauerlein 2002, A1, 8). African-American women are even more likely than African-American men to hold the lowest paid state jobs (SC State Human Affairs Commission 2000). Things haven’t changed much in the past decade. These numbers mirrored those issued in a 1990 report (Bauerlein “SC failed”). As state representative Leon Howard of Richland points out, this translates into a "bread and butter issue," because those who do not earn enough often must take second jobs and have little time to devote to their families (Bauerlein “Best state jobs,” 2001, A1, 7). In February of 2001, the five African-American women in the state legislature introduced a bill that would require equal pay for equal work, but it did not pass (Harris and Bauerlein 2002, A8).

 

Another indicator of quality of life is health. South Carolina ranks first in the nation in congenital syphilis, which is passed from a mother to her fetus. The state’s rate of congenital syphilis is three times greater than that of the nation as a whole. The syphilis problem is particularly acute among young, black women (Winiarkski “S.C. first,” 2001, B1, 5). Other health statistics are equally grim. The state ranks first in the rates of other sexually transmitted diseases, 9th in the rate of cervical cancer, a preventable disease, and 46th in the nation overall in terms of women’s health care (Collins “For Women,” n.d). Women attending a series of health forums around the state said that health services were often unavailable, and when available, too expensive (Lamb 2002, B5).

 

What can we conclude from this?  The nation’s history and culture are such that white men have generally held most or all of the power in society. Some scholars argue that because our public policy has been based on “traditional ideas of women’s roles,” it has simply “reinforce[d] women’s subordinate status.”[2]  Certainly South Carolina is not unique in terms of its distribution of power, although by many measures it has moved slowly towards what many would regard as a more equitable distribution. Women have been slow to gain a voice in policymaking. Policymakers have, as a result, often failed to see problems from the perspective of women.

 

Slow change can, perhaps, be explained to some degree by the state 's political culture, or set of political beliefs. Scholars often refer to the work of Daniel Elazar, who used the concept of political culture, or political attitudes and beliefs, to explain many differences in attitudes about politics among the states. Elazar saw each state as a “unique” entity within a “common American culture.”  He described three kinds of political cultures found among the states, individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic. The southern states had "traditionalistic" political cultures, and South Carolina was quite possibly  “the most traditionalistic state in the Union.” In a traditionalistic culture, people tend to favor a “limited” role for government. They see government as playing a “positive” role in society, but its job is to maintain the status quo. This is accomplished by ensuring that power is held by a few elites, whose status may be based on their family or social position. Implicit is the idea that people who are at the top of the ladder will have no desire to bring about change since they benefit from the current state of affairs. Those who are not part of this in-group are discouraged from participating in politics, and political parties, which can be an avenue of greater participation, do not play a major role (Elazar, in Graham and Moore, 1994, xv-xxx; Ford, 1996).

 

While political culture may provide an incomplete explanation as the state modernizes and changes, women remain under-represented in South Carolina politics and government. They held few of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship through much of the state 's history. Although SC’s women hold the same legal rights today as men, they have not used their potential influence to make policymakers sit up and take notice. As a result, policymakers often see issues that concern women as either insignificant or as a challenge to the status-quo. Let us look at some of these issues and the changing role of SC’s women in the political process.

 

The Long Road to Equal Rights

 

"Women in South Carolina have seen more legal and economic advances in the past century than women in other states - mostly because they had further to go." (Chris Roberts, "Status of Women,” 2000, A1)

 

Before one is too quick to condemn the current players in the political process, it is important to remember that there was a time when SC’s women had virtually no legal rights at all. In absolute terms, women in South Carolina and in the nation have come far from the time when the first white settlers reached the shores of North America. Although women in some groups of Native Americans, such as the Cherokees of South Carolina, played an active role in the political life of their societies, most South Carolina women of the 1600s and 1700s held no formal power. White colonists believed women were inferior to men and church doctrine supported that belief. Under the doctrine of coverture, a married woman had no independent legal existence from her husband. Even if a married woman earned a salary, the money belonged to her husband (Evans 1989, 22).

 

Some white women had a few legal rights. Single adult women and widows could hold their own property in their own names and make contracts. The majority of South Carolina women who ran their own small businesses in colonial times were single or widowed.  White women were able to inherit property in colonial South Carolina, but the culture expected women to center their lives in the private sphere of the home. Until the 1800s few people anywhere in the nation saw a need for women to have much in the way of an education (Evans 1989, 22; Edgar 1998, 168-70).

 

Women of color lacked even the limited degree of power held by white women.  Enslaved women were sexually available to white men, regardless of their own wishes. Free black women were always at risk as well.

 

Most states failed to grant women the right to vote, even as they expanded the franchise to more and more groups of men during the 1800s. South Carolina was not one of the handful of states that granted women the right to vote prior to the passage of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920. Lacking political power, a few brave women organized and employed a variety of tactics to bring about change. This included making speeches. This was a daring activity in the early 1800s because women never spoke in public.

 

The reaction to women speaking out is illustrated by the experience of two South Carolina women. Sarah and Angelina Grimke grew up in Charleston, and after moving north, became advocates for abolitionism and women’s rights. In the late 1830s, the sisters began to speak to groups of northern women about the evils of slavery; before long, they were addressing mixed audiences (Evans 1989, 79). The sisters were criticized by the clergy and even by some in the Abolitionist movement, who felt that it was inappropriate for women to speak in public (Rossi 1988, 287). During the years that followed, women’s rights advocates, some of whom also campaigned for a range of legal rights besides the vote, wrote letters, marched, and lobbied legislators, but without success. But all this took place outside of South Carolina.

 

The women's rights movement came to South Carolina in 1869 when Charlotte Rollin, a woman from a leading Charleston African-American family, urged the state legislature to grant women the right to vote.  Along with her sister, Frances, she organized a women's rights meeting in South Carolina the following year. In 1871, the sisters formed a chapter of the American Women Suffrage Association, which attempted to persuade the legislature to give women the vote. The organization's efforts met with no success, although in 1892, a sympathetic senator introduced a bill to grant the franchise to women. It did not pass (Ford 1996, 109-110).

 

That same year, a Greenville County woman, Virginia Durant Young, founded a statewide organization, the South Carolina Equal Rights Association. The women of the late 1800s were moving out of the home, becoming active in women's organizations and clubs, trying to solve the social problems of the day. Surprisingly, traditional southerners did not perceive this as threatening, perhaps because these women maintained a public image that one scholar describes as that of the “Southern Lady” (Ford 1996, 109). Nevertheless, the soft, submissive women the public saw were gradually becoming politically aware and active. Even the members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union discussed the suffrage issue. But most men had little interest in votes for women (Edgar 1998, 471).

 

At South Carolina's 1895 Constitutional Convention, women once again raised the issue of the franchise. Cora Lott asked the legislature to give women the vote, using an argument that she hoped would appeal to legislators without seeming to threaten a change to the status-quo. She argued that women could play a role in eliminating corruption from politics.[3] Marion County women petitioned the convention for the franchise on the grounds that the vote was essential in a democratic system. Women from Lexington and Fairfax counties also submitted petitions. But the delegates took no action. They were primarily interested in ensuring that blacks would be unable to vote. Some delegates attempted to further this goal by proposing to grant literate, property-owning women the franchise, a goal supported by Mrs. Young and other suffragists who were anxious to gain the right to vote, regardless of the impact on black men and women.  Male opposition to "subjecting" women to the political world remained strong. The proposals failed to pass. Women did gain some legal rights, however, including the right to make contracts and to control their own property (Edgar 1998, 445; Ford 1996, 110; Anthony and Harper 1970, 923). 

 

In the area of family law, women still lacked rights. In a family the father was the legal guardian of his children. In 1914 the plight of Lucy Tillman, daughter-in-law of U.S. senator and former governor "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, illustrated women's lack of power even in the private sphere of the home and family. When Lucy became ill, her husband, Ben Jr., gave his parents legal guardianship of their children. After Lucy recovered, she sued in court to regain custody of her children, but lost (Berman "The Road," 2000, D1, 3). In another area of family law, efforts to secure the right to divorce failed. In their account of the history of women's suffrage, Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper mournfully noted, "South Carolina is the only State which does not allow divorce" (Anthony and Harper 1970, 924). Women would have to wait until 1949 to gain the right to end a bad marriage, and until 1991 for marital rape to become a crime (“Governor signs,” 1991, 1).[4]

 

Most of the efforts of the women's movement of the day focused on gaining the right to vote rather than on a broad range of women’s rights. Suffragists across the country were demanding the vote in the early 1900s. Lacking political clout, women organized and began to agitate from outside the system. In 1912 South Carolina women formed the New Era Club in Spartanburg. Four more women's suffrage organizations sprang up quickly, and in 1915 they joined together to become the South Carolina Equal Suffrage League. Soon there were 25 branches throughout the state, led by middle-class white women. Furious at the injustice suffered by Lucy Tillman, Eulalie Salley of Aiken became involved in the women's suffrage movement, organizing a women's suffrage league chapter in 1916 (Berman "The Road," 2000, D1, 3). Along with other women, she wrote letters, traveled to other states, and made speeches in favor of votes for women ("SC Women Fought," 1999, A13). But as elsewhere in the South, African-American women were not welcomed to the movement (Edgar 1998, 471). The women's movement had always been primarily a movement of white, middle-class women, most of whom did not see the parallels between their own plight and that of African-Americans.

 

Although the 19th amendment extended the franchise to all American women in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify the amendment for almost half a century. The South Carolina legislature did pass a law giving women the franchise after the 19th amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, but at the same time they denied women the right to serve on juries.[5] Public opinion did not support votes for women in the state, although some women did register and vote (Edgar 1998, 471). In 1969, when South Carolina finally ratified the 19th amendment, Eulalie Salley, who had joyfully rung a fire alarm when the 19th amendment became law nearly half a century earlier, stood by the side of the governor to watch him sign it (Berman "The Road," 2000, D1, 3; “SC Women Fought,” 1999, A13).

 

Women and Political Participation: Only a Few Shall Serve

 

“Having grown up in the South, I think you sometimes need to show women that just because you have a career and an interest in politics, (that) doesn’t make you unfeminine.”  Actress and Columbia native Kristin Davis (Crumbo “TV star,” 2002)

 

“While I think the board appointed me because I meet the qualifications, I think the board should be commended on their ability to look at the qualifications of a person and to be progressive and forward thinking enough to be able to accept a female in that role.” Certified public accountant Peggy Boykin, upon her appointment as Director of the SC Retirement System (Harris “Woman to lead,” 2002). 

 

After gaining the franchise, South Carolina's women did not rush out and leave their homes, families and jobs to run for political office. No South Carolina woman has ever served in the US Senate, and no South Carolina woman would be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives until 1938. Elizabeth Hawley Gasque, elected following the death of her husband, never actually served in the Congress, which was not in session prior to the expiration of her term. Four more women followed her to the U.S. House of Representatives. All but one were elected to fill out the unexpired terms of their husbands, a phenomenon called the widow’s mandate. The exception was Elizabeth Patterson, who served from 1989 to 1993. She came from a political family, being the daughter of a former governor, Olin Johnston. But she was also unique among South Carolina’s congresswomen. She followed the traditional male route by serving in a lower political office before seeking a higher one. She paid her political dues by serving in the South Carolina Senate from 1977 to 1986.

 

At the local level, Kate Vixon Wofford became South Carolina’s first female elected official in 1922, serving as superintendent of education in Laurens County (Hornsby 1995, 10).  Only a few women followed in her footsteps. Those who did were remarkable for their courageousness. Mary Gordon Ellis was elected to the S.C. Senate in 1928. Ellis was an unusual woman and perhaps that accounts for her groundbreaking achievement. A school superintendent in rural Jasper County, she believed that all children should have equal educational opportunities. During her term of office she bought textbooks for black students and proposed that bus transportation be provided for black children. She clashed with the incumbent state senator over race issues, and he had her fired. Although her ideas were far ahead of her time, Ellis did not give up. She responded by running against him and winning his seat in the legislature. Sadly, Ellis died of cancer in 1934, two days after casting her vote in a losing bid for her own re-election in a political rematch (Berman “The road,” 2000, D1. 3). No woman served in the S.C. House of Representatives until Harriet F. Johnson's election in 1946.

 

Over the years, South Carolina sent fewer women to its state legislature than all but a handful of states (Center for American Women and Politics Women in the US House, 2001). Only 9 women held seats in the General Assembly before 1970. As recently as the 2000 legislative session, women held only 10 percent, or 17, of the seats in the General Assembly, one of the lowest percentages in the nation.[6] Only Alabama ranked below S.C. among the states in 2000.  With the appointment of Gloria Haskins to replace her husband after his death in late 2000, the number of women legislators once again matched that of the 1999 session. None of those women chaired a major policy-making committee. Democrat Gilda Cobb-Hunter, who served for four years as the House Minority Leader from 1996 to 2000 and Republican Rita Allison, subcommittee chair of the House budget panel on education, were among the few women to hold leadership positions.[7]

 

By any measure, few South Carolina women hold or have held leadership positions in the state. Only three women have ever been elected to statewide constitutional offices in South Carolina. They are the late lieutenant governor, Nancy Stevenson, a Democrat, and the two women who have served as state school superintendent, Republican Barbara Nielson and her successor, Democrat Inez Tenenbaum, elected in 1998. Only 16 percent of the sitting judges on the state courts are women as of this writing (Brundrett “Judicial diversity,” 2002, B5).  In 1983 Judy Cone Bridges became South Carolina’s first female judge when she was elected to the Family Court. Jean Toal made history in 1988, becoming the first woman associate justice of the state Supreme Court and in 2000, with her election as the first woman chief justice. Carol Connor became the first woman elected to the state Court of Appeals in 1993, and Kay Hearn became its first woman chief justice in 2000.[8]

 

The local level of government is often the entry point for would be state leaders.  South Carolina had no women mayors until 1952, when Priscilla Shaw was elected as mayor of Sumter. But even at the local level, few women serve today. 1999 figures compiled by The State Newspaper indicate that 31 women served as mayors in South Carolina (11.5 percent), and 51 women served on county councils (15.3 percent).[9] According to the SC Municipal Association, as of May 2001 only 782 women  (25.2 percent) were serving as elected and appointed municipal officials across the state.[10]

 

The pattern holds for non-elective state-level positions as well, according to the SC Advocates for Women on Boards and Commissions, a private organization that has gathered data for ten years. Very few women were appointed to serve on the various boards and commissions that make policy in many areas. Barbara Moxon, a founder and chair of the organization, noted in a 1996 interview that women did not usually receive appointments to the most important boards, but rather to “arts and museum commissions.” In a 2001 interview, Moxon noted that there are still many boards and commissions with only one or two women serving. “There are lots of opportunities, but it is hard for women to get on” because the politicians who make the appointments do not consciously seek out qualified women for the posts. Moxon views part of the task as "raising the consciousness of legislators" (“Five Years,” 1996, A10; Moxon 2001).

 

Explaining the Pattern

 

“One of the central puzzles in American politics is why women don’t have more power at the top.” (Lessner 1999, A8).

 

Why do so few women hold political power at the dawn of the 21st century? In a discussion focusing on the dearth of women elected officials, Margaret Conway (2001, 231-233) offers three explanations, drawing on the work of a number of scholars.

 

1. Cultural/legal. First is a cultural/legal explanation. In our male-dominated society, women have been limited to their traditional roles as wives and mothers (what was referred to as the “private sphere” by feminist scholars studying the 19th century), or to a few types of jobs, sometimes called the pink-collar ghetto.  Many institutional barriers existed.  For example, through much of the nation’s history, many institutions of higher learning did not admit women. Women were barred from the professions or had difficulty gaining entrance. Women had no legal protections. No laws guaranteed their right to even hold a job. The expectations as to what types of roles were appropriate prevented women from getting the kind of education and experience they would need to run and win political office, at least until federal laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s gave them greater opportunities.  Until recently, most people thought that politics was not an appropriate occupation for women.

 

While legal barriers no longer exist, attitudes have been slower to change.[11] This has been particularly true in the South, a region where women have lagged behind the nation in terms of their political participation. Earlier we noted that South Carolina has a traditionalistic political culture. The residents of the region are socially conservative and accept traditional gender roles as appropriate. These attitudes arose from a patriarchal “plantation culture” which emphasized the differences between men and women, and a religious tradition that emphasized women’s inferiority (Ford 1996, 108; Tindall and Shi 1999, 643). It  “placed white women on a pedestal, isolating them from normal economic and social intercourse to a greater extent than women in other areas of the country “ (Ford 1996, 108). The southern lady was expected to uphold the southern way of life. She had to maintain the outward appearance of appropriate female behavior even when she began to enter the political arena, and proceed with caution.

 

For many people, accepting women as participants in the world of politics has been difficult. This is illustrated by the state legislature creating the South Carolina Commission on the Status of Women in 1970, but not giving it the resources it needed in order to be effective. It had no staff and only a tiny budget. Some legislators and other citizens were opposed to its very existence. As the result of a lawsuit filed in 1973 by the anti-abortion movement, Commission members were unable to travel or speak in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. Because the “women’s libbers” tended to be both pro-ERA and pro-abortion, to many people these two issues became inseparable. In a 1976 ruling, a judge stated that the Commission did not have the authority to distribute a document it had produced entitled A Legal Guide for South Carolina Women. In 1978 the General Assembly passed legislation changing the name to the less inflammatory “South Carolina Commission on Women,” and also gave the Commission the authority to inform South Carolina women about their legal rights (Ford 1996, 119; Keyserling 1998, 266-7). Still, some legislators did not grant the Commission much respect. During one debate concerning the Commission’s budget, reports former Representative Harriet Keyserling, legislators snickered and made remarks about the need for a men’s commission (Keyserling 1998, 267). After the National Commission on Women published a report listing South Carolina as one of the worst states for women, the state Commission issued a report to Governor Campbell with recommendations for action. This 1990 report gained for the Commission a degree of legitimacy. The Commission began to change its role to that of an advocate in 1991, developing a set of proposals and meeting with legislators.  Although its relationship with women legislators is unclear, former Representative Keyserling notes in her biography that the Commission was “quite active and helpful to us…” during her tenure in the SC House (Keyserling 1998, 266). The Commission on Women was placed in the governor’s office during the restructuring of state government in 1993, and thus lost the little independence it had had. In part, an independent Commission on Women was symbolic. But like any other entity within the governor’s office, the Commission must now have the approval of the governor or his representative before issuing any publications or making any statements. Regardless of the position any particular governor holds on women’s issues, there has been a power shift (Keyserling 1998, 267). Women no longer have an independent voice to speak for them. Power brokers do not see a need for a separate agency to represent the interests of women.

 

Many women would argue that this is merely another indication of the failure of leaders in a traditionalistic culture to take women seriously, an attitude found in all walks of life and at all levels of government. Edith Childs, one of two women on Greenwood County Council, noted that it was difficult to get respect from the men on her seven-member council (Bauerlein “Women urged,” 2001, B1, 5). Political women have often complained in frustration that what they have to say is perceived as less important than how they look. "I still have more people talk about the length of my skirt than I have talk about passing laws," commented Mary-Louise Ramsdale, director of SC First Steps for School Readiness (Collier “Women share,” 2000, A1, 10).  

 

Certainly, women are moving into occupations once seen as the bailiwick of men. Law is a field that has often been a stepping-stone to political office, and we might expect that as more women become lawyers and gain experience, more of them will look to political office. It was not until 1918 that the legislature passed a law even allowing women to practice law in SC.[12] Only gradually did more women begin to enter the profession.[13] The experiences of women lawyers in breaking through the glass ceiling are indicative of the barriers that professional women have faced. Some, like Ellizabeth Van Doren Gray, who became president of the SC Bar in 2001, and SC Court of Appeals Chief Justice Kay Hearn, found that many law firms would not hire them out of law school when they graduated in the 1970s. Even today, women tend not to be employed by big law firms that provide critical support when their associates or partners make political runs. Kathleen Kempe, a former state legislator, noted that many women are involved in solo practices and simply cannot afford to take the time away from their work to run for office (Greene and Scoppe “Tradition,” 1996, A1, 12). Nor can women in other occupations take the time from their work that is needed to run and win.

 

Women who worked outside the home did not have the time to get involved in politics and take care of their family obligations as well.  The experience of Sandra Manning, a member of the Richland District 1 school board, is illustrative. Manning, a mother with family obligations, remained in Columbia while her five male colleagues attended a national conference in San Diego during the last week of March, 2001 (Bauerlein “Women urged,” 2001, B1, 5). Mary Matalin, a television commentator and Bush campaign official, expresses the dilemma in blunt terms: "If you choose to live a life of politics, it means you…dedicate your life to politics 24 hours a day, or you are not going to be effective. You don't get married until you're 40, and you have kids after that" (Lessner 1999, A8). It is not surprising that few women choose that route. Many of those who do enter politics do so later in life, after their children are grown. As the table below shows, women on average are five years older than men when they are first elected to the SC General Assembly.

 

Table 1 Average Age of First Election to the General Assembly by Gender

 

Chamber

     Males (n)

     Females (n)

Senate

   38.6   (42)

      43.5  (2)

House

43.5 (105)

      48.1 (15)

Note: Based on data collected from the General Assembly Website, 2001. Ages for 3 men and 1 woman in the House were not listed. Data for 2 men in the Senate were not listed.

 

 

 

2. Differing Acquired Skills. A second explanation cited by Conway for why so few women hold political power focuses on the different skills men and women acquire in the course of their professional and volunteer activities. According to this view, while both men and women do volunteer work and engage in a variety of activities inside and outside the workplace, men tend to engage in those types of activities that give them the kinds of skills they need in order to successfully run and win. One example might be the typical division of labor in a religious organization, where women are likely to do most of the cooking for the church social activities and men to handle the finances.[14] Kempe notes that women lawyers often specialize in areas that are not considered to provide good training for judges, and thus are even less likely to be considered for judgeships (Greene and Scoppe 1996, A1, 12).

 

In the business world and in government administration, most people who hold management positions begin with entry-level jobs and work their way up. Similarly, most people who obtain political office first gain skills and experience at the bottom of the ladder, either through paid or unpaid positions in political campaigns, through serving in local-level political offices, through holding professional positions that provide them with appropriate experience and/or contacts, or some combination. Observers note that it takes time for sufficient numbers to gain that needed experience.

 

Examples of successful women in South Carolina politics illustrate the point. Harriet Keyserling, after being a housewife, served in the state legislature from 1977 to 1994. She began her political career by observing the Beaufort City Council for the local League of Women Voters and learning about local politics. Subsequently, she ran for City Council and was elected. Two years later, she was asked to run for the state legislature, winning the first of a number of races. This path is not too different from that of many men who begin their public service at the local level. In turn, service in the General Assembly is often a stepping stone for both men and women in South Carolina who wish to seek a higher office. Jean Toal and Nancy Stevenson both served in the state legislature before obtaining the offices of state Supreme Court Justice and Lieutenant Governor respectively. Toal has urged women to get involved at the grassroots, in school boards and other local government bodies, citing her own experience. "…I began laboring in the vineyards in neighborhood associations and in the community and in my church, and a lot of people move into elected office from work within their community" (Sheinin “Toal says,” 2000, D4).

 

3. Political Gatekeepers. A third explanation for male dominance in politics emphasizes political gatekeeping. Consider all that is involved in gaining the nomination of one’s party, or winning a general election and especially the need for large amounts of money. This view suggests that without the support of party leaders, interest groups, and others who are in a position to provide the necessary support, it is difficult for women to run and win.  As a result, many women do not even try to run for elective office. Some research suggests that gatekeepers see women as "different."  Patsy Stone, a probate judge in Florence, speaking of the difficulties women have in getting elected as judges, noted, "The Legislature has been dominated by white males for so many years, and generally they pick one of their own" (Greene and Scoppe 1996, A1, 12). Research also suggests that gatekeepers see women as less likely to win than men and therefore less deserving of support (Conway 2001). Emily's List, a national organization, has sought to address what is essentially a chicken and egg problem by raising money for liberal Democratic women candidates who otherwise would not have enough of a campaign war chest to be competitive. In South Carolina, the B-List is a parallel but nonpartisan political action committee formed in 2001 to raise money to encourage women of all political persuasions to run and help them get elected to office (Bauerlein “Group,” 2001, A1, 9).

 

Women and Men in Power: Differing Priorities

 

“Although women as a group…do not have a single set of priorities or a single lens through which they view politics, it is true that they have distinctive life experiences to bring to their deliberations and decisions.” (Sue Thomas 1994, 105)

 

What difference does it make if women are elected to public office and/or serve in positions of leadership?  As former representative Harriet Keyserling of Beaufort writes: "…women bring different experiences, viewpoints and priorities to the table" (Keyserling “More women,” 2001, A7). Scholars who studied women serving in state legislatures in the 1980s and 1990s found that these women had a different set of policy priorities than their male colleagues. The women tended to be more liberal than their male colleagues and to focus on issues like education, health, and welfare, as well as feminist issues. The women also tended to see themselves as having a special responsibility for representing women and women’s interests. Some scholars have also found that male and female legislators have different ideas as to the best way to solve policy problems. The same studies found that women legislators are more likely to succeed at enacting these proposals than are men (Thomas, Sue 1994).

 

Studies have found that the number of women serving in the legislature makes a difference. As more and more women join the legislative body, women legislators are more likely to focus on policy issues of concern to women. Is there a critical mass that is needed in order for women’s issues to become a policy priority? Estimates range from 25 to 35 percent of the legislature.[15] Scholar Sue Thomas hypothesizes that when women comprise 35 to 40 percent of the legislature, women’s issues will begin to “permeate general legislative environments” (Thomas, Sue 1994, 154). That issues of importance to South Carolina’s women have not been at the top of the agenda is no surprise. As of 2001, women still comprised only 11 percent of the entire state legislature, with 19 members.

 

Scholars have also found that a women’s caucus seems to provide women legislators with an additional source of support (Swers 2001). However, women are not a monolithic block, and Southern women tend to be more conservative than their counterparts in other parts of the country. Like women everywhere, they have cross-cutting loyalties, including ideology and race. Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, for example, wears two hats, as a woman and as an African-American.  Although some women legislators, like the late Republican Carolyn Frederick, supported the Equal Rights Amendment, others, such as Republican Sherry Martschink, did not.

 

In South Carolina, a Women’s Caucus has not been a very effective instrument of change (Ford 1996, 119). Former representative Keyserling remembers that when she and her colleagues formed a nonpartisan Women's Caucus in the General Assembly, all they could agree on was that mammograms should be included under health insurance! Ironically, a woman lobbyist for the insurance industry opposed them (Keyserling Roundtable, 2001).  The members of this small group do not always agree on the appropriate stance on issues or how to solve problems, although Keyserling feels that its mere existence helps to give women legislators a sense of “connectedness” with each other. 

 

Several examples illustrate the weakness and lack of unity of the Caucus. For the first time, an African-American woman ran for a judgeship in 1997. Much to her disappointment, she was only able to garner the support of 10 out of 21 women legislators. Only on the issue of domestic violence did all the members of the Women’s Caucus co-sponsor a bill in 1997 (Keyserling 1998, 265-268).  Four years later, the Caucus was still pressing on that issue. As Rep. Vida Miller commented, 2001 was “not a very good year for women” (“Women’s Caucus,” 2001, 7A). Observers noted that most of the issues that concerned women never made it to the top of the legislative agenda. These included a proposal to strengthen the state's equal pay laws, which received bipartisan support from the legislature's women, although the Women’s Caucus did not endorse it (Bauerlein “Salary bill,” 2001, B1, 5). Only one issue pushed by the Caucus passed, a $20 fee added to marriage licenses to help support domestic violence programs. This was in a year where domestic violence received a great deal of political coverage from the media (see below).[16]

 

The question of whether more women are needed in positions of power if women's needs are to be addressed takes on a degree of urgency in light of the findings of various studies. Several recent studies comparing South Carolina to other states point to the state's failure to meet the needs of its women. A study conducted by the Institute for Women's Policy Research at George Washington University placed South Carolina near the bottom on four of five categories examined (Van Slyke 2000, A6). South Carolina placed in the bottom third on indexes that measured political participation, employment and earnings, economic autonomy, and health and well-being. Only on reproductive rights did South Carolina rank in the middle third (Institute for Women's Policy Research “Overview,” 2001). Foremost among the unmet needs were the lack of adequate health care for women and the high incidence of domestic violence.

 

Meeting with more than 400 women at a women's health forum in December of 2000, Governor Jim Hodges noted that South Carolina ranked 46th in the nation in women's health care (Winiarski "SC Women," 2000, B1, 5).  Among the unmet needs were mental health counseling, treatment for HIV, birth control, and protection from domestic violence. South Carolina Commission on Women executive director Rebecca Collier summed it up: "Even though we're living longer, we're not living better" (Smith Brinson "Formidable," 2000, B1, 5). South Carolina women may be living longer, but their life expectancy is two years short of the national average, according to a national study that ranked the states. The three-year study, conducted by the National Women’s Law Center, also found that African-American women were disproportionately affected by health problems. With nearly one in five South Carolina women lacking health insurance, women are forced to turn to whatever government services are available for health care. While the same study found that South Carolina did better than the nation as a whole in providing breast and cervical cancer screening, little money has been invested in the preventive care that might reduce some chronic health problems (Hinshaw “Women’s Health,” 2000, A7). In a report that summed up the findings of four regional fora held in 2000, the Commission on Women recommended creation of a women’s health office. It was unlikely that the legislature would consider this in a tight budget year (Lamb 2002, B1).

 

Domestic Violence

 

“I saw what it did to my friend…I was there one night to witness the abuse, and the children were there. I saw how he was beating the life out of her physically and emotionally…I didn’t know this sort of thing existed…” Claudia Maloney, a fund-raiser for Sistercare, a women’s shelter. (Lewis “Sistercare,” 2002).

 

While few "women's issues" have received serious attention from lawmakers and the political establishment of the state, domestic violence is beginning to gain a place on the political agenda. It has also become embroiled in politics. A study conducted by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit organization, ranked South Carolina as number one in domestic violence among all the states, a rate that was double the national average (Bauerlein “Domestic violence,” 2001, A1, 8). The primary actors in the domestic violence debate at this writing are Governor Hodges and Attorney General Charlie Condon.

 

Governor Hodges was the first South Carolina governor to recognize the seriousness of domestic violence. Hodges acknowledged the seriousness of domestic violence early in his administration by appointing a task force to develop recommendations on how to address the problem (Thomas, Maurice "Group Takes Stand," 2000, B7). Meeting for the first time in August of 2000, task force chair Malissa Burnette framed the issue of domestic violence as a health issue (Hinshaw “Women’s Health,” 2000, A7). In December of 2000, the Governor's task force issued a lengthy report with recommendations for change. But domestic violence was a lower priority for the governor than other issues.

 

Although the governor mentioned domestic violence in his January 2001 State of the State address, it was not a major focus of the speech. In late May of 2001, he finally began to develop a plan to implement task force recommendations. However, as the 2001 legislative session drew to a close, the legislature had not taken any action on domestic violence legislation, although a number of bills had been introduced. There are several reasons for this. First, other issues took priority in 2001, such as a significant budget deficit and a state lottery.  Second, supporters point out that both victims and advocates are almost invisible compared to other, better-funded interest groups that lobby the legislature and are able to push their concerns to the top of the agenda. Third, no one has been willing to lead the charge. As noted earlier, not even the Women's Caucus in the legislature has supported domestic violence laws. They have had internal disagreements about the best approach to take to solve the problem. The Caucus supported only a law that would raise the fees for marriage licenses and for divorces, with the understanding that those monies would go for domestic violence programs.[17] Finally, lawyers and advocates in the domestic violence field disagree over the best approach to take in solving the problem and over legal issues involved. Collier comments: "At least we're talking about domestic violence now…A few years ago, it wouldn't even be discussed" (Bauerlein “Domestic abuse,” 2001, A1, 8).

 

While Governor Hodges' commission may have framed this as a women's health issue, Attorney General Charlie Condon may have recognized that in conservative South Carolina, a more traditional law and order and criminal justice framework would sell better. In October of 2000, Rep. Becky Meacham-Richardson and state Attorney General Charlie Condon proposed legislation to crack down on offenders. A May 2001 story in The State Newspaper reported that 54 percent of the most serious domestic violence cases are dropped. Subsequently, Attorney General Condon issued a directive to prosecutors that they must "pursue, and not drop" such cases. Some members of his own party (Republicans) criticized the directive, arguing that the money to try all such cases just isn't there. Democrats accused him of  "using his office to gain political points" (Bauerlein “Condon says,” 2001, A7). Some opponents also argued that prosecutors should have discretion to divert offenders to counseling, especially in situations where the victim is unwilling to testify. Supporters of Condon's approach argue that it is a cop-out to say that prosecution is impossible because women won't testify.  "So many women have no other options. They have no shelter to go to…they fear losing their children, they have no earning power" (Bauerlein “Domestic violence,” 2001, A1, 8). By August of 2001, prosecutions were proceeding despite requests by victims to drop their complaints, and one accused man had decided to plead guilty as a result. Of course, only time will tell whether a hard-line approach reduces the incidence of domestic violence in SC.  

 

It is worth noting that as long as domestic violence was defined as simply a “women’s issue,” policymakers were slow to act. Subsequently, elites supported limited domestic abuse legislation and made policy changes in their response to perpetrators. To what can we attribute the change?  Politicians may be reaching out to women, who after all, are voters, as the next election cycle approaches. It may also reflect policymakers’ recognition that domestic abuse is a problem, even though there is not general agreement on the solution. On the other hand, politicians may simply perceive and frame domestic violence as something other than a women’s issue. If these elites see a changed approach to domestic abuse policy as simply one more way to ensure that order is maintained within society, then it may represent only relatively non-threatening incremental change, rather than an indicator that women now play a significant role in the political process.

 

The Citadel

 

“Save the male.” Slogan used by supporters of the Citadel’s all-male admissions policy in the early 1990s.

 

“I don’t understand the big push for maintaining the “tradition” of single-gender education in a military school. We all grow up in a “coed” world…Our nation’s service academies admitted women years ago…” (Connie O. Mellette, mother of Nancy Mellette, who took Shannon Faulkner’s place in the Citadel lawsuit. Mellette, “The Citadel,” 1995, D3)

 

No issue better illustrates the slow change in attitudes about the role that women should play in South Carolina than the battle to admit women to the Citadel. Nearly thirty years after the Citadel admitted its first African-American cadet it remained one of only two all-male publicly supported military colleges in the United States, along with Virginia Military Institute (VMI). Unlike the University of South Carolina, which began admitting women following the passage of an 1894 law, and Clemson University, which began admitting women in the 1950s, the Citadel remained an all-male bastion, rejecting any steps to bring women on campus even for its day programs.[18] The siege mentality of those defending the status quo was almost inevitable in an era when law and public opinion were making many more opportunities available to women elsewhere across the nation.[19]

 

In 1990 the US Justice Department filed a suit in federal court, claiming that VMI was violating the 14th amendment to the US Constitution by excluding women. Soon Justice Department lawyers were visiting the Citadel as well. That same year, a female legislator introduced a bill into the General Assembly to compel the Citadel to admit women to its corps of cadets, but the bill died in committee. In 1992 Navy Reserve Officer Patricia Johnson decided to return to school to pursue an advanced degree in engineering. She lived and worked in Charleston, so she applied to the Citadel, which had a day program for veterans. Unable to put together an equivalent accredited program at other local schools, she was dismayed to learn of the Citadel’s all-male policy. Along with two other female veterans, she decided to submit an application. The Citadel rejected the applications, and the women filed suit, attracting attention and support from outside of the state. However, the Citadel responded by terminating the program, which also meant that 78 male veterans were unable to complete their degrees. Response by the faculty was muted, but they expressed their dismay in a resolution. The Citadel did not restore the program (Manegold 2000).

 

Although some state officials, such as the chair of the state’s Commission on Higher Education, publicly stated that it was time for the Citadel to go coed, the school resisted. The beginning of the end came with the 1993 decision by Shannon Faulkner, a high school senior who had read about the failed efforts of the women veterans, to ask her guidance counselor to remove all references to gender on her college transcripts. The Citadel accepted her, but rescinded the acceptance after discovering she was a woman. Faulkner sued in the federal courts. After a federal district court judge ordered Faulkner’s admission while the case made its way through the courts, Faulkner became the first woman admitted to the Citadel’s day program (women already were attending its evening graduate classes). For the first year, she attended classes, lived off campus, and was not part of the corps of cadets.

 

Faulkner began her short-lived career as a member of the corps of cadets in the fall of 1995, after the Citadel lost in federal appeals court. Her fellow cadets did not, in the eyes of some observers, behave like southern gentlemen. Faulkner, who had gained weight and was not physically fit, found herself unable to handle the rigors of life as a “knob.” She had little or no support from her fellow students. She even received some death threats for herself and her family. Isolated and mocked, she withdrew from the Citadel after only a few days. Cadets celebrated her departure.[20]

 

As the drama unfolded, Citadel supporters inside the legislature and Citadel officials and alumni discussed the feasibility of going private. In the meantime, the state legislature came to the rescue, setting up a “separate but equal” program at a private women’s college. The state allocated $5 million for the South Carolina Institute of Leadership at Converse College and spent about $3.4 million. But a parallel lawsuit was already making its way through the courts. Following a US Supreme Court decision in June 1995 declaring that Virginia Military Institute must admit women and that the separate program it offered for women at a private women’s college was not equal, the Citadel decided to admit women to its corps of cadets. South Carolina ended state support for the Converse College leadership program. The legal battles in both South Carolina and Virginia were fought in federal, rather than state courts, and focused on the national constitutional issues.

 

Citadel officials expressed disappointment but not surprise with the Court decision. Other state officials maintained a low profile on the decision. In the name of tradition, the legislature had been willing to maintain a tax-supported single gender college. When pressed, they spent tax dollars to set up and maintain a separate program for women, a generation after the courts had declared that such programs were unconstitutional when based on race.[21] Only a few legislators, such as Senator Holly Cork of Beaufort, spoke out against the Citadel’s single gender policy (Roberts “Converse,” 1996, A6). Critics felt that the state's political establishment did not see the issue as one of addressing an inequity toward half of its citizens. Indeed, few leaders spoke out in favor of admitting women to an institution supported, in part, by taxes paid by women.

 

Although courts can mandate changes in policy, they cannot quickly change attitudes and feelings. For the Citadel the transition was difficult. Perhaps more support from the public and from state officials would have eased the way. Unlike Virginia, which committed over $5 million to renovate its barracks and prepare for the transition at VMI, South Carolina’s General Assembly provided only $337,500 in 1997.[22] Four women entered the Citadel in 1996, all members of families with military backgrounds. Only two were to graduate from the school. Two others dropped out, citing harassment from their fellow cadets.[23] Despite the attention and tremendous pressure, Nancy Mace became the first woman to graduate from the Citadel in 1999, and Petra Lovetinska became the second in 2000. Both women admitted it had been, at times, a difficult experience, but also a positive one.

 

Looking ahead, Citadel officials anticipated that eventually women might comprise about 10% of the corps of cadets (Gunnells “Citadel transition era,” 2000, B5). In the 1998-99 school year, with the addition of women’s intercollegiate sports, applications by women had increased, and 43 female cadets were in residence (Smith “Applications,” 1999, B1, 5). By the year 2000, there were about 60 women cadets, with about 30 women part of the freshman class that entered that fall. As the early pioneers left, a new and smaller class that included 19 women entered the Citadel.[24] Only three of the women were South Carolinians (Robinson “19 Women,” 1997, A1, 14).

 

For both supporters and opponents of single-gender education, the battle over the Citadel marked the end of an era. By 2001, Allison Dean Wright, a graduate of the Citadel’s evening program who had favored single-gender education, had become the first woman elected to the school’s board (“Citadel gets” 2000, B3; Dietrich 2000, B1, 5).  Early predictions by opponents that private single-sex colleges would be doomed proved to be premature. The Women’s Leadership Program continues at Converse College, but without state funding.[25]

 

 

Conclusion: The Slow Pace of Change

 

 

“…scholarship…suggests that southern women will continue to be underrepresented in the public sphere and politics, captives of sex segregated public role expectations that limit opportunities for women even when legal and structural barriers have fallen.” (Ford 1996, 121).

 

“If anything, traditional Southern values of family and community favor women’s political interests.” (Television star and Columbia native Kristin Davis, at a fundraiser for the B-List. Crumbo “TV Star,” 2002).

 

“I hope that women’s organizations stay on top of this. Some of these guys just don’t get it.” (First Lady Rachel Hodges, commenting on the anonymous memo concerning the dress code for female pages. Bauerlein  “Governor orders,” 2001, A1)

 

"That can buy a lot of beer and girls"  (Comment made by Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian at the 2001 Boys State, discussing what state lottery money can buy. Bauerlein “Beer and girls,” 2001, A1)

 

"Democrats are for beer and girls. Republicans are for cold beer and hot girls" (comment by Republican Party Chairman Henry McMaster at the 2001 Boys State. Bauerlein “Beer and girls,” 2001, A1)

 

“We have a lot of challenges.” (Governor Hodges, speaking at a meeting on women’s health in December of 2000. Winiarski “SC Women,” 2000, B1).

 

 

It is often said that the more things change, the more they stay the same. In some respects, to paraphrase a once-popular cigarette commercial, SC’s women have come a long way. After all, few today would question a woman’s right to vote or pursue a career of her choice.  Under the law, twenty-first century women are equal to men. But in other respects, the pace of change has been glacial. Women perceive that they must continue to struggle to resolve the same problems as in the past. Economically and politically they are not the equals of men. Women still hold little power in the state at the beginning of the 21st century. More than 80 years after women gained the right to vote, more than half (53 percent) of South Carolina's eligible voters are female. But few women have reached the portals of power in the state.

 

Two recent incidents lend credence to the view that attitudes toward women have yet to change in South Carolina, and that women have yet to be taken seriously. In June of 2001, the office of the clerk in the state House of Representatives issued a memo concerning the proper dress code for female pages at the request of several female legislators who felt the young women were not dressing appropriately. Later the same day a second memo surfaced among Republicans in the House, supposedly written by a non-existent “Men’s Caucus.” Among the suggestions included in the second memo were a recommendation that underwear should be considered “optional” and a suggestion that the pages should ignore the previous reminder not to wear shirts that showed cleavage, so as to save “valuable materials used in blouse construction.” The memo also stated that terms like “babe,” “sugar,” and “honey,” should be considered “compliments” (Bauerlein “Memo,” 2001, A1). To some legislators, like Democratic representative Vida Miller of Georgetown, who asked for an apology, this simply illustrated a lack of respect for women. It appeared that things had not really changed much since 1970, when Vicki Eslinger, now a lawyer, filed a suit in court resulting in a decree allowing women to serve as pages for the first time (Bauerlein “Governor orders,” 2001, A6).

 

The 2001 incident subsequently became enmeshed in politics. The governor ordered the state Human Affairs Commission to conduct an independent investigation, and House Republican leaders, perceiving that they were being subjected to a partisan attack, called the governor’s response “political grandstanding” (Harris “Governor,” 2001, A1). The House leadership pledged to investigate, but the author of the memo was not uncovered.[26] In January of 2002, ninety of one hundred twenty four House members attended a sexual harassment sensitivity training session organized by Speaker David Wilkins. Similar sessions were offered to other House employees and to the governor’s staff (Bauerlein “Turnout high,” 2002, B1, 3).

 

While some would argue that this was an isolated incident, the height of silliness, The State Newspaper reporter Claudia Smith Brinson summed up well the views of those who see this as part of a larger problem. “A ‘little joke’ like this reminds us that women will be ‘treated right’ in the Legislature—as long as they know their place… And as long as South Carolina ranks 50th in the number of women in elective office, there will be men who feel free to act like this—and not enough women in place to stop them” (Smith Brinson “Good ol’ boys,” 2001, D3).

 

Not long after the page incident occurred, Boys State and Girls State were meeting in Columbia. High school students participating in both of these activities learn about how state government works and how to make laws. The young ladies attending Girls State didn’t think a lot of the page memo. In interviews they described it as “rude,” and indicated that it made them more determined to succeed in obtaining their own career objectives (Crumbo 2001, B1, 5).

 

While the young ladies were discussing the memo at Girls State, their male counterparts were listening to a different kind of presentation by the chairs of the state Democratic and Republican parties. In the course of his remarks, Democrat Dick Harpootlian discussed the winning of lottery scholarships, which, he said “can buy a lot of beer and girls.” Not to be outdone, his Republican counterpart, Henry McMaster, began his comments by remarking that “Democrats are for beer and girls. Republicans are for cold beer and hot girls.” McMaster later said that he was just trying to be funny in order to get the boys to pay attention to his comments on other issues, and Harpootlian commented that anyone who was bothered by this should “get a life.” The remarks of both party chairs about beer and girls were reprinted the following day in the Citizen Times, the newspaper of Boys State.

 

Coming just a week after the page memo incident, some observers did not find the remarks amusing. Republican Representative Edie Rogers, chair of the legislative Women’s Caucus, stated, “I’m sort of up to here with flippant comments from men at this point.” Laura Wolliver, associate director of the USC Women’s Studies program, noted: “They just don’t want to change” (Bauerlein “Beer and Girls,” 2001, A1, 9).

 

Certainly South Carolina’s women have come a long way from those women we referred to in the opening paragraphs, who lacked the basic rights of citizens and thus had no say in the governance of their state or their nation or even of themselves. South Carolina’s women are slowly beginning to play a part in the political process. The culture has begun to change, as women avail themselves of educational opportunities and begin to move into the economic mainstream.

 

Young women today, like the ones who attended Girls State, do not believe that stereotypes of Southern womanhood will keep them from accomplishing their dreams. In another generation, a larger pool of women with education and experience will expect to take their places next to the men. This generation will have grown up with a different set of expectations about their roles as Southern women than their mothers and grandmothers, or indeed, their fathers and grandfathers. In some ways, South Carolina’s women will continue to be divided. They will disagree on the role of government and on many issues, as do women in the nation at large. But as more women become politically active, they will be able to force policymakers to address the issues that concern women, and gender will play a greater role in policymaking. More and more of South Carolina’s women will become the policymakers themselves. However, South Carolina is still a very traditionalistic state. Its citizens value their individualism and prefer to rely on themselves rather than on government. Even when South Carolina women gain more political power, they will face formidable barriers in getting the political system to address their problems and needs. It will not be easy.[27]

 

References

 

 Anthony, Susan B., and Ida Husted Harper, eds. The History of Woman Suffrage Volume IV  New York: Source Book Press, 1902, 1970.

 

Bauerlein, Valerie. “ ‘Beer and girls’ debate at Boys’ State criticized.” The State Newspaper   (June 23, 2001): A1, 9.

 

________. "Best state jobs usually go to whites." The State Newspaper   (February 6, 2001): A1, 5.

 

________. “Change waves red flag.” The State Newspaper (December 7, 2001): A1, 6.

 

________. "Condon says his directive is mandatory."  The State Newspaper    (May 25, 2001): A1, 7.

 

________. "Domestic abuse bills lie dormant."  The State Newspaper (May 16, 2001): A1, 8.

 

________. "Domestic violence crackdown urged."  The State Newspaper (May 24, 2001): A1, 8.

 

________. “Governor orders investigation of ‘despicable’ memo on pages.” The State Newspaper (June 9, 2001): A1, 6.

 

________. "Group to recruit, fund S.C. female candidates." The State Newspaper  (June 1, 2001): A1, 9.

 

________. "Marriage fees to benefit domestic abuse shelters." The State Newspaper  (June 6, 2001): A1, 18.

 

________. “Memo sidetracks House.” The State Newspaper  (June 8, 2001): A1, 6.

 

________. "Salary bill gets 2-party support." The State Newspaper (April 4, 2001): B1, 5.

 

________. "S.C. failed for ten years to dent salary gap." The State Newspaper   (February 7, 2001): A1, 7.

 

________. “Speechwriter censured for response to memo.” The State Newspaper   (June 11, 2001): A1, 10.

 

________. “Turnout high for sensitivity training.” The State Newspaper (January 10, 2002): B1, 3.

 

________. "Women urged to run, run, run." The State Newspaper   (March 29, 2001): B1, 5.

 

Berman, Pat.  “The road to equal rights.”  The State Newspaper (August 26, 2000): D1, 3.

 

Brundrett, Rick. "Columbia lawyer Gray to take reins as new S.C. Bar president."  The State Newspaper (May 7, 2001): B1, 5.

 

________. “Hearn becomes first female Chief judge of state appeals court.”  The State Newspaper (March 20, 2000): B3.

 

________. “Jean Toal sworn in as Chief Justice.”  The State Newspaper (March 24, 2000): A1, 10.

 

________. “Judicial diversity urged.” The State Newspaper  (March 7, 2002): B1, 5).

 

Burritt, Chris. “Lawyers offer The Citadel donation for female cadets.” The State Newspaper (March 3, 2000): A1, 7.

 

 “Carolyn Frederick, Former State Rep.” The State Newspaper (February 7, 2000): 4A.

 

Carroll, Chuck. “Hodges Tells Women They Have His Attention.”  The State Newspaper (December 1, 1999): B1, 12.

 

________. “Rita Allison: Always Out to Accomplish Task at Hand.”  The State Newspaper (January 2, 2000): B3.

 

Carroll, Chuck, and Joseph S. Stroud. “Women Legislators Still Few.” The State Newspaper (January 2, 2000): B1, 3.

 

Center for American Women and Politics. Fact Sheet. Election 2000: Summary of Results for Women. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. <http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/facts/Summary2000.html> Accessed December 22, 2000.

 

________.  Fact Sheet. South Carolina: Women Serving in 2001 and Election Results for 2000. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. <http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/facts/legcand/sc-cand.html> Accessed December 22, 2000.

 

________. Fact Sheet. Women in State Legislatures 2000. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, 2000.

 

________. Fact Sheet. Women in the U.S. House of Representatives (State by State) 1917-2001. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, 2001. <http://www.Rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/facts/USHouse(stbyst).html> Accessed June 29, 2001.

 

________. Fact Sheet. Women Who Succeeded Their Husbands in Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institue of Politics, Rutgers University, 2001 <http://wwww.CAWP/factnew/FS-CongWidows(02-01).wpd> Accessed June 29, 2001.

 

“Citadel gets first woman voting board member.” The State Newspaper (April 13, 2000): B3.

 

"Cobb-Hunter eager to begin new role.” The State Newspaper (January 8, 2001): B3.

 

Collier, Joe Guy. "Women share ways to gain more power." The State Newspaper   (March 24, 2000): A1, 10.

 

Collins, Jan K. “For Women, A Grim Report Card.” The Business and Economic Review http://research.badm.sc.edu/research/bereview/Be47_3/for_women.htm  Accessed December 1, 2001.

 

Collins, Lisa M. “In education, women hold few jobs of power, leadership.”  The State Newspaper (March 26, 2000): B1, 7.

 

Conway, M.  Margaret. “Women and Political Participation.” PS: Political Science and Politics XXXIV (June, 2001): 231-233.

 

Conway, M. Margaret, David W. Ahern, and Gertrude A. Steuernagel. Women and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1999.

 

Crumbo, Chuck. “Girls’ State participants see ‘rude’ page memo as motivational.”  The State Newspaper (June 15, 2001): B1, 5.

 

________. “TV star ‘breaks leg’ in SC political arena.”  The State Newspaper (February 3, 2002): B3.

 

Decker, Twila. “Judge puts Mellette on front line.”  The State Newspaper (October 4, 1995): A1, 12.

 

________. “VMI case front and center in high court.” The State Newspaper   (January 14, 1996): B1, 8.

 

Decker, Twila, and Charles Pope. “VMI case could shake gender laws.”  The State Newspaper (September 24, 1995): A1, 8.

 

"Deloitte and Touche "Women in Elected Office" Survey Identifies Obstacles for Women Political Leaders. " (2000) <http://www.roper.com/news/content/news171.htm>  Accessed February 2, 2000.

 

Dietrich, R. Kevin. “Woman to serve school she loves.” The State Newspaper (May 15, 2000): B1, 5.

 

Edgar, Walter. South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.

 

Elazar, Daniel J. “Series Introduction.” South Carolina Politics and Government, Cole Blease Graham Jr. and William V. Moore. Lincoln. Nb: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

 

Evans, Sara M. Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America. New York: The Free Press, 1989.

 

“Female Clemson graduate recalls early days.” The State Newspaper (March 28, 1996): B1.

 

Finnigan, Krista. Presentation on South Carolina and the World, to South Carolina Civics Project Summer Teachers’ Institute. Columbia, S.C., June 21, 2001.

 

“Five years of counting and women still missing.” The State Newspaper (February 3, 1996): A10.

 

Ford, Lynn E. "Women In South Carolina Politics." Journal of Political Science 24 (1996): 103-131.

 

Gearan, Anne. “Ex-cadet’s appeal rejected.” The State Newspaper   (October 10, 2001): B1, 5.

 

Gitelson, Alan R., Robert L. Dudley, and Melvin J. Dubnick.  American Government 6th edition  Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 2001.

 

"Governor Signs Law Ending Legalized Rape." South Carolina Women 12 (Fall, 1991): 1.

 

Greene, Lisa, and Cindi Ross Scoppe.  “Tradition has Denied Judgeships to Women.”  The State Newspaper (January 13, 1996): A1, 12.

 

Gunnells, Charlene. “Citadel’s transition era might be ending.” The State Newspaper   (May 14, 2000): B6.

 

________. “Citadel transition era ends.”  The State Newspaper (July 15, 2000): B5.

 

Harris, Kenneth A. “Cobb-Hunter to relinquish party leadership.”  The State Newspaper (November 11, 2000): A1, 5.

 

________. “Governor orders investigation of ‘despicable’ memo on pages.” The State Newspaper (June 9, 2001): A1, A6.

 

________. “Woman to lead pension system.” The State Newspaper (February 16, 2002): B3.

 

Harris, Kenneth A. and Valerie Bauerlein. “Diversity improves little in state jobs.” The State Newspaper (February 5, 2002): A1, A8.

 

Hinshaw, Dawn. “More Change Expected in the Next Generation.”  The State Newspaper (March 1, 2000): A1, 6.

 

________. “Women’s health poor in S.C.”  The State Newspaper (August 24, 2000): A1, 7.

 

Hornsby, Benjamin F.  South Carolina Women: A Timeline. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1995.

 

Institute for Women's Policy Research (2001).  Research in Brief. Overview of the Status of Women in the States.  <http://www.iwpr.org/>  Retrieved February 6, 2001.

 

Janofsky, Michael. “Military College Awaits Its First Female Cadets.” The New York Times  online (July 20, 1997). < http://www.nytimes.com > Accessed July 5, 2001.

 

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.”  American Journal of Sociology 82 (March, 1977): 965-990.

 

Keyserling, Harriet. Against the Tide: One Woman’s Political Struggle. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.

 

________. "More women in public office would be boon to S.C." The State Newspaper (April 16, 2001): A7.

 

________. Roundtable Presentation to SC Civics Project Summer Teacher's Institute, Columbia, S.C. (June 19, 2001).

 

Lamb, Linda H. “Report keeps focus on women’s health.”  The State Newspaper (February 5, 2002): B1, 5.

 

LeBlanc, Clif. “Citadel settles final lawsuit filed by ex-female cadet.” The State Newspaper (November 5, 1999): B1, 7.

 

________. “Ex-cadet’s Citadel suit set for trial.”  The State Newspaper (October 20, 1999): A1, 9.

 

________.  “Hearn Remembers Journey to Top.”  The State Newspaper (June 3, 1999): A1, 6.

 

________. “Legislature Elects 2 Women to Lead S.C.’s Highest Courts.”  The State Newspaper (June 3, 1999): A1, 6.

 

________. “Mentavlos, Citadel settle for $100,000.”  The State Newspaper   (November 16, 1999): B3.

 

Lessner, Lori.  “Women lack power despite political pull.”  The State Newspaper (December 1, 1999): A8.

 

Lewis, Kimathi. “Judge will hear Citadel hazing case.”  The State Newspaper (August 22, 1999): B1, 10.

 

________. “Sistercare to honor its staff.” The State Newspaper (February 1, 2002): B1, 4.

 

________. “S.C. No. 1 in Killing of Women by Men.”  The State Newspaper (October 27, 2000): A1, 5.

 

Lumpkin, Margaret. S.C. Municipal Association. Email, May 14, 2001.

 

Majewski, Hannah. Public information officer, SC State Election Commission. Email. June 29, 2001.

 

Manegold, Catherine S. In Glory’s Shadow: Shannon Faulkner, the Citadel, and A Changing America.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

 

McCabe, Diana. “Many women raised not to think about finances, but that’s changing.” The State Newspaper (October 18, 1999, D1, 6).

 

Mellette, Bland. “Barriers to women at Citadel must fall.”  The State Newspaper   (January 14, 1996): D2.

 

Mellette, Connie O. “The Citadel should admit all who qualify.”  The State Newspaper (September 24, 1995): D3.

 

Moxon, Barbara. Telephone Interview, July 5, 2001.

 

Newton, Christopher. “Women school superintendents are rarity.”  The State Newspaper (October 26, 2000): A7.

 

O’Shea, Margaret N. “Stevenson elected Lieutenant Governor.”  The State Newspaper (November 8, 1978): 1A.

 

Pope, Charles. “High court will hear VMI case.”  The State Newspaper (October 6, 1995): A1, 9.

 

Pope, Charles, Twila Decker, and Bill Robinson. “Court Smashes Citadel’s Walls.”  The State Newspaper (June 27, 1996): A1, 7.

 

“Profile: Women’s History Month – Mary Gordon Ellis.”  The State Newspaper (March 29, 2000): B2.

 

 Roberts, Chris. “Status of S.C. women improved since 1900.”  The State Newspaper (March 1, 2000): A1, 6.

 

Roberts, Lori D. “Converse program keeping faith, losing funds.”  The State Newspaper (June 27, 1996): A6.

 

Robinson, Bill. “18 women join ranks as Citadel freshmen.”  The State Newspaper   (August 19, 1997): A6.

 

________. “19 women join Citadel’s ranks.” The State Newspaper (August 24, 1997): A1, A14.

 

________. “Cadets’ reaction: Sadness, not shock.” The State Newspaper (June 27, 1996): A1, 6.

 

________. “Citadel adjusts to coed routine five years after Faulkner.” The State Newspaper (August 20, 2000): B1, 7.

 

________. “Citadel holds open corps door.” The State Newspaper (June 29, 1996): A1, A6.

 

________. “Citadel now comes to the hard part.” The State Newspaper (June 28, 1996): A1, 16.

 

________. “New era on campus.”  The State Newspaper (August 20, 2000): B1, 7.

 

Robinson, Bill, and Lisa Greene. “Citadel case waits for justice.”  The State Newspaper (August 21, 1997): A1, 15.

 

Ross, Bernard H., and Myron A. Levine. Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America 6th edition Itasca, Il: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 2001.

 

Rossi, Alice S. ed. The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1973, 1988.

 

Scoppe, Cindi Ross.  “Women Found Power in Ballot Box.”  The State Newspaper   (August 26, 1995): A1, 6.

 

Sheinin, Aaron. “Toal says women leaders need to be developed.” The State Newspaper (December 10, 2000, D4).

 

Smith Brinson, Claudia. “Formidable health-care barriers confront women.”  The State Newspaper (December 7, 2000): B1, 5.

 

________. “Good ol’ boys memo far from innocuous.” The State Newspaper  (June 19, 2001): D1, 3.

 

Smith, Bruce. “Applications by women up at Citadel.”  The State Newspaper (March 10, 1999): B1, 5.

 

________. “Female Citadel grad tells of life as cadet.”  The State Newspaper   (November 19, 2001): A1, 8.

 

South Carolina State Human Affairs Commission. The Status of Equal Employment Opportunity in South Carolina State Government: Annual Report to the General Assembly.  Columbia, SC: South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, 2000.

 

“South Carolina women fought long, hard for vote.” The State Newspaper (October 31, 1999): A13.

 

Stensland, Jeff. “Stevenson Paved Political Trail for Women in S.C.”  The State Newspaper (March 1, 2000): B3.

 

Strope, Leigh. “Judge puts civil trial on hold.” The State Newspaper (August 24, 1999): B3.

 

Stroud, Joseph S.  “With calm tenacity, Linda Short makes her mark in the Senate.”  The State Newspaper (January 2, 2000): B3.

 

Suddes, Melinda. SC Association of Counties. Telephone interview (June 29, 2001).

 

Swanson, Marshall. “Gibbes and Adams led way for women at the University.”  USC Times (March 23, 2000): 8.

 

Swers, Michele. “Understanding the Policy Impact of Electing Women: Evidence from Research on Congress and State Legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics XXXIV (June, 2001): 217-219.

 

Tanner, Robert. “Women Lose Ground in State-Level Offices.” The State Newspaper (November 26, 2000): D5.

 

Task Force on Women in State Government.  Recommendations to the S.C. State Budget and Control Board. Columbia, S.C.: Task Force on Women in State Government, 1997.

 

“Tenenbaum Built Career as Advocate for Schoolchildren.”  The State Newspaper (March 26, 2000): B3.

 

Thomas, Maurice. “Group takes stand against domestic violence.” The State Newspaper (October 15, 2000): B7.

 

Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

 

Tindall, George Brown, and David E. Shi. America: A Narrative History. Volume I. 5th edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999.

 

Turner, Robyne S (2001). “Women and the Gendered City.” Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America.”  Bernard H. Ross and Myron A. Levine, eds.  6th edition Itasca, Il: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 2001: 273-295.

 

U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. QT-02. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000, Densus 2000 Supplementary Survey Summary Tables, South Carolina.  <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTT…=040000US45&qr_name=ACS_C2SS_EST_G00_QT02> Accessed October 4, 2001.

 

________. "State and County Quick Facts - South Carolina." <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html > Census 2000. Accessed December 1, 2001.

 

“VMI makes smooth jump to coeducation.” The Charlotte Observer (August 24, 1997): n.p.

 

“VMI to admit women.” The State Newspaper (September 22, 1996): A1, 16.

 

Van Slyke, Tracy (2000). “Northeast rated best for women.”  The State Newspaper   (November 16): A6.

 

Watkins, Kristin N. Email, July 10, 2001.

 

Whitaker, Lois Duke. ed. Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999.

 

Winiarski, Kathryn. “S.C. first in babies exposed to syphilis.” The State Newspaper (July 14, 2001): B1, 5.

 

________.  “S.C. Women Describe Problems, Seek Help.”  The State Newspaper (December 7, 2000): B1, 5.

 

“Women’s Caucus struggles against low numbers, party, and racial lines.” The Aiken Standard (July 9, 2001): 7A.

 

 


[1] See Lois Duke Whitaker (editor). Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? Third edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999)

 

[2] See Conway, Ahern, and Steuernagel  (1999) for a discussion of women and public policy.

 

[3] Feminist and social reformer Jane Addams made a similar argument in an essay entitled “Utilization of Women in City Government.” Addams argued, in effect, that women’s participation in politics would be an extension of their traditional role as housewives. Women could clean up politics and sweep out political corruption, just as they cleaned a house and swept out the dirt, if they were given the right to vote. See Rossi 1973, 604-612.

 

[4] Following the Civil War, divorce was legalized under the 1868 constitution. In 1869, Mary Cameron of Charleston became the first woman in the state to be granted a divorce. However, in 1878 the white-dominated state legislature passed a law that made divorce illegal once again (Hornsby 1995, 6).

 

[5] Women did not gain the right to serve on juries in SC until 1968. (Berman “the Road,” 2000, D1, 3).

 

[6] Center for American Women and Politics “Women in State Legislatures,” 2000; Carroll and Stroud "Women Legislators," 2000. For the nation as a whole, 1,670 women served in state legislatures, or 22.5 percent of the total (Center for American Women and Politics, Election 2000).

 

[7] “Cobb-Hunter eager,” 2001, B3; Carroll and Stroud "Women Legislators," 2000. Compare this to the nation as a whole. During the past 30 years, women have gradually increased their representation in statewide and state legislative offices nationwide. However, following the November 2000 election, there was a slight decrease in the number of women state legislators nationwide, from 1,685 to 1,670, and of women holding statewide elected offices, including governors, from 92 to 88. Whether this is the beginning of a counter-trend or a temporary leveling off is unclear at this juncture. At the same time, the number of women elected to national offices increased. In 2001, fifty-nine women served in the U.S. House of Representatives and 13 in the U.S. Senate, record numbers for both bodies. The number of women governors, at 5, is also a record (Tanner 2000, D5).

 

[8] See Hornsby 1995 for a timeline of women’s “firsts” in South Carolina; see Brundrett “Jean Toal,” 2000, A1, 10 for a discussion of Jean Toal’s passage through the judicial system; see Brundrett “Hearn becomes,” 2000, B3 for a discussion of Kay Hearn’s achievements.

 

[9] Hornsby (1995, 12) lists Priscilla Shaw as SC’s first woman mayor; See Lessner 1999, A8 for a discussion of women elected to local level offices; The SC Municipal Association compiles data on women appointed and elected to municipal offices. See Lumpkin 2001.

 

[10] For the nation as a whole, women have had greater success in achieving elected office at the local than at the national level. This is attributed in part to the fewer demands that such service makes on women, who traditionally have heavier family responsibilities than men, and in part to the greater base of support that women can build at the local level, where they are usually active in civic and other voluntary groups (Ross and Levine 2001, 112-113). While the South Carolina municipal data presented here, which lump together both elected and appointed officials, are not comparable to the figures presented by Ross and Levine, the same factors would seem to hold true. South Carolina women do relatively better at the local level. Neither the S.C. Association of Counties nor the state Election Commission compiles comparable data for county officials (Majewski 2001; Suddes 2001).

 

[11] Even in the nation as a whole, many Americans have come only slowly to the idea that women are competent enough to serve in high political office. A survey conducted in 2000 by a major polling firm indicated that while most Americans no longer object to the idea of a woman president, about one-third still believe that a man would be more qualified than a woman to serve. (Deloite and Touche 2000)

 

[12] In that year, South Carolina first had a woman lawyer, James M. “Miss Jim” Perry, admitted to the bar (Hornsby 1995, 10).

 

[13] About 27% of South Carolina’s lawyers are women now. More are in the pipeline, however. As of this writing, about 45% of the students at the USC law school, the only law school in the state, are female. (Brundrett “Judicial Diversity,” 2002, B5).

 

[14] According to Christopher Hayes, the founder and executive director of the National Center for Women and Retirement Research, women are taught from a very young age “not to worry about money.” This is beginning to change, however, as younger women take control of their finances. (McCabe 1999, D1, 6).

 

[15] Interestingly, Thomas and others have found that at that level, a smaller percentage of the women in a legislature focus on women’s legislation, perhaps because more male legislators have been enlisted as allies. In a classic study conducted in the late 1970s, scholar Rosabeth Moss Kanter found that when a minority comprises 35% of the group, it is able to form alliances and have an impact on group culture. At 40%, a balance develops and other “structural and personal factors” come into play (Thomas, Sue 1994, 154; Kanter 1977).

 

[16] Studies of women in Congress, where there were very few members prior to the 1990s, are not as clear-cut, but they do show that the presence of women there has had an impact on the policy agenda. Congresswomen have sponsored and supported legislation that focuses on women’s traditional “caregiver” role, as well as feminist concerns. Like their counterparts at the state level, congresswomen see women as an important part of their constituency and see one of their roles as representing other women. In some areas, such as abortion, moderate congresswomen were unable to affect policy because they did not serve on the appropriate committees (Swers 2001, 217-219).

 

[17] The $20 fee added to marriage licenses was to be earmarked for the state 's 13 domestic violence shelters. It was estimated that this would provide nearly $1 million in new funds for services (Bauerlein “Marriage fees” 2001, A1, 8).

 

[18] Margaret Snider Coker, who earned a degree in chemistry, was Clemson’s first female graduate (“Female Clemson,” 1996, B1). Frances Guignard Bibbes was the first woman to attend USC, leaving after four years without earning a degree. Mattie Jean Adams was USC’s first woman graduate, earning a bachelor of arts degree (Swanson 2000, 8).

 

[19] For a detailed discussion, see Manegold, 2000.

 

[20] High school senior Nancy Mellette, the daughter of a Citadel graduate and sister of a cadet, replaced Faulkner in the lawsuit (Decker “Judge,” 1995, A1, 12). Mellette later chose to attend West Point rather than the Citadel (Manegold 2000, 292). Shannon Faulkner completed her education at Anderson College and is an English teacher in Greenville (Robinson “Citadel adjusts,” 2000, B1, 7).

 

[21] The courts have never held that the same strict standards must be used in sex-discrimination cases as in race discrimination. However, with the VMI case, the Court greatly narrowed the gap (Decker and Pope “VMI” 1995, A1, 8; Pope, Decker, and Robinson “Court smashes” 1996, A1, 7).

 

[22] VMI’s first coed class included 30 women, out of over 1,000 female applicants. One woman and 21 men dropped out during the first week. Doubtless, the relatively large number helped to prevent the isolation felt by the first group of Citadel women (“VMI Makes” 1997, n.p.).

 

[23] One theory as to why two cadets succeeded while two failed was initially promulgated by an anonymous student who sent out messages over the Internet. He suggested that Nancy Mace and Petra Lovetinska both had powerful benefactors, providing them with some measure of protection (Manegold 2000, 299-300). Nancy Mace was the daughter of the school’s new Commandant of Cadets. Petra Lovetinska could not afford the tuition and fees but received both financial help and moral support during her four years in college from a group of alumni and Citadel supporters dubbed Petra’s Plan Holders (Gunnells “Citadel transition era,” 2000, B5). Mace later commented that she was in a different company from the other female cadets, and that could also have accounted for her different experience. Mace, who has written a book about her years at the Citadel, indicates that she did experience harassment and that some alumni and outsiders, including women, verbally attacked her (Smith “Female Citadel grad,” 2001, A1, 8). Cadets Jeannie Mentavlos and Kim Messer dropped out after one semester, claiming that they had been subjected to hazing, sexual harassment, and even set afire (Gunnels “Citadel’s transition era,” 2000, B6). Were these two women harassed because they were female, as they claimed? Or was the school’s rigorous, boot-camp culture simply incompatible with their special needs and physical abilities? Mentavlos claimed, for example, that the upperclassmen would only allow her 30 seconds to shower even when she explained that she was menstruating and needed additional time to clean herself. Her brother, also a cadet at the time, later said that when he tried to protect his sister, he was warned to “watch his back” and removed from a list of honors students (Strope 1999, B3). Messer later described a litany of horrors that led to her decision to leave the school. This included being pushed with a rifle, interrupted while she was studying, and having food thrown on her clothing (Manegold 2000, 303). As the charges flew back and forth, the Citadel established a set of rules to deal with gender issues and harassment. The school also hired a woman as an assistant commandant, and sent upperclassmen who would be working with incoming freshmen to Parris Island to observe how the Marines trained women and men (Robinson “18 women,” 1997, A6). Despite the charges that Mentavlos had made, the state refused to prosecute any of the male cadets, claiming that the evidence was contradictory (Robinson and Greene “Citadel case”). Both Kim Messer and Jeannie Mentavlos filed lawsuits in federal court. In January 1998 a 13-month Justice Department investigation found that the women had been abused, but also concluded that the abuse was the same as that faced by male cadets (Lewis “Judge,” 1999, B1, 10). Messer settled her lawsuit for $33,750 that same year (Strope1999, B3). After a federal judge threw out about half of the charges in the Mentavlos case, while allowing the lawsuit to proceed (LeBlanc “Ex-cadet’s,” 1999, A1, 9), Mentavlos settled with the Citadel for $100,000 (LeBlanc “Mentavlos, Citadel,” 1999, B3). As part of that agreement, the Citadel did not have to admit any liability. Ultimately, the school disciplined nine cadets and dismissed one (Janofsky, 1997). The legal battles cost the school over $3 million overall (LeBlanc “Citadel settles,” 1999, B1, 7). In October of 2001, Mentavlos lost her final appeal in her harassment suit against two cadets, when the Supreme Court refused to hear her case (Gearan “Ex-cadet,” 2001, B1, 5).

 

[24] The school had to report four times a year to the federal government about its treatment of women, although it hoped this requirement would soon be dropped (Robinson, “Citadel adjusts,”2000, B1, 7).

 

[25] A description of the leadership program may be found on the Converse College web site, at http://www.converse.edu. The college's goal is to admit 10-12 students to the program each year (Watkins 2001).

 

[26] Shortly thereafter, a speechwriter for Governor Hodges wrote a satirical response that claimed to be a memo from the Women’s Caucus, suggesting that the Men’s Caucus pick up their cavemen clubs at the Speaker’s office, and stating that the page dress code was suspended in bars. Hodges suspended him for three days (Bauerlein “Speechwriter” 2001, A1, 10).

 

[27]  Sources used in preparation of this paper but not elsewhere cited are:  Brundrett “Columbia lawyer,” 2001, B1, 5; Burritt 2000, A1, 7; “Carolyn Frederick,” 2000, A4; Carroll “Hodges tells,” 1999, B1, 12; Carroll “Rita Allison,” 2000, B3; Center for American Women and Politics South Carolina, 2000; Center for American Women and Politics Women Who Succeeded, 2001; Harris “Cobb-Hunter,” 2000, A1, 5; LeBlanc “Hearn Remembers,” 1999, A1, 6; LeBlanc “Mentavlos,” 1999, B3; Lewis “SC,” 2000, A1, 5; Mellette, Bland 1996, D2; Newton 2000, A7; O’Shea   1978, 1A; Pope1995, A1, 9; “Profile,” 2000, B2; Robinson “Cadets’ reaction,” 1996, A1, 6; Robinson “Citadel holds,” 1996, A1, 6; Robinson “Citadel now comes,” 1996, A1, 16; Robinson “New era,” 2000, B1, 7; Scoppe 1995, A1, 6; Stensland 2000, B3; Stroud 2000, B3; Task Force, 1997; “Tenenbaum built,” 2000, B3; Turner, Robyne S 2000; US Census Bureau Profile, 2000; US Census Bureau “State and County,” 2000; “VMI to admit,” 1996, A1, 16.