Virginia women’s college bars trans students because of founder’s will from 125 years ago

[IwantToRetire]

Sweet Briar College, a private women's liberal arts school, said the policy stems from the legally binding will of its founder, Indiana Fletcher Williams, who died in 1900. Sweet Briar's leadership said the document requires it to “be a place of ‘girls and young women.’”

The phrase "must be interpreted as it was understood at the time the Will was written,” Sweet Briar's president and board chair wrote in a letter earlier this month to the college community.

More at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/women-college-virginia-trans-students-b2604887.html

If only all those women's organisations that only exist because of women from earlier generations would show the same respect to them as this college has done.

Yes, people should be interpreting words to mean what they mean. And not the total opposite.

Unfortunately given the MRA culture underpinning the TRAs, this would mean people respecting women.

Respecting women enough to accept that what they say and want is real, and not to be dismissed as not important!

How refreshing.

I fear that it may not survive a legal challenge.

I'm sure someone stunning and brave will take this to court. But in the meantime, what a breath of fresh air.

After the shitshow in Australia recently you may be right @SinnerBoy 😔

Admissions policies at private undergraduate colleges are exempt from Title IX, the 1972 law that bars sex discrimination in education. So Sweet Briar would not be affected by the Biden administration's new rules under Title IX, which restrict discrimination based on gender identity.

It's worth reading the full article, not just my quotes in the OP!

I think any legal challenge could be based on the fact that the original will conditions have previously been overridden. The original will explicitly excluded non white women and that condition has already been removed.

Removing a discriminatory clause, is not the same as saying the word woman includes men who identify as women.

But based on the article, it looks like the decision makers (not quite sure of the College administrative structure) are a smaller group than the teaching staff who seem to want to make sure the word woman is inclusive.

"Removing a discriminatory clause, is not the same as saying the word woman includes men who identify as women."
I agree with this but I presume the TWAW brigade would claim that restricting the word women to biological women would be similarly discriminatory

the TWAW brigade would claim that restricting the word women to biological women would be similarly discriminatory

No doubt but what I was saying is that in this instance the meaning of the word race has not changed. (And most people have a shared idea of what it meant.)

Whereas claiming that the word woman which at the time the clauses were drawn out could only have meant biological females, is now "unversally" understood to include men who identify as women, can easily be disputed.

Although as I said, if both teaching staff and students are all signed up to the rainbow alliance, it will be hard for a minority of traditionalists to say it should always be for biological females.

I was thinking more about the legally binding nature of the will. If legally binding will conditions can be (rightfully )overturned on the grounds of race discrimination then it perhaps gives an opportunity to say that the legally binding conditions can also be overturned on the grounds of trans discrimination.

I think that the colleges may be on safer ground by simply eliminating candidates after interview. Surely all they'd have to say is that they wouldn't be a good fit? I think employers do that, with no comeback. I mean so as to avoid being sued.

Not that they should be in a position to even consider being sued, of course.