Deciding at this juncture to no longer be supportive of trans and nonbinary members of the SBC community is taking a step backwards because it is withdrawing from a position that the college had already been in.

So radical! And in many ways it remains so today. This mission has changed over time, though; "white women and girls" as written in the trust has developed to eventually include students of color, of different gender and sexual orientations, of different socio economic backgrounds.

support students who have an uncountable number of facets to their experiences, trying to create a restrictive definition on the exact experiences they want to support, at the cost of others, doesn't create as rich of a community and experience for even the students who do fit that definition.

I absolutely agree, not every institution needs to (or should!) shape themselves in the same way. What a boring world we'd live in if they did! There are so many different ways to experience womanhood, and that's exactly my point. Because women's colleges are foundationally designed to

She also provided the information that went into her decision, which doesn't smack of assumptions to me at all.

An "entire" community? Kiesling's letter clearly acknowledged different parts of the SBC community and didn't create broad generalizations. I'd say that this very discussion we're having shows that she *has* created engagement. You and I may not have had the chance to talk, otherwise.

To put it simply, I do not believe the college has a right to dictate the self-determination of their current or (formerly) future students.

But we're not talking about *a* single demographic. We're talking about people with an enormous range of lived experiences and identities. Women's colleges are the colleges that are the most well-positioned to continue the mission of supporting gender minorities in higher ed.

The historical mission of women's colleges to support a demographic not traditionally supported in higher ed is still critical, and the self-determination (and plain old determination!) of women's colleges to embrace this mission in a society 125 years from SBC's founding is incredible.

As you said, SBC has provided a supportive environment for generations of students... but so many of those generations excluded women who would have benefited from AND enriched the community.

I understand your point. SBC doesn't exist in a vacuum, though, and it is part of larger communities; it cannot be an echo chamber for itself. I do support the rights of colleges to self-determination, but I don't see how it's disingenuous to support that right of the students as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we lost everything in March 2015 and then surrendered everything AGAIN to come back in August because we wanted to build the future of the college... this ain't it.

I applaud Lydia Kiesling's decision and her expression of it.

If enough people plant their feet like this, the historically unstoppable force of bigotry will meet an immovable object in us.

Sweet Briar needs this external pressure (because God knows they're not listening to internal pressure). My students, at another university, in another state, in a different part of the country, need this pressure exerted against Sweet Briar.

Her respectful, concise explanation for the choice to cancel showed students, faculty, and alumni *that people see what is happening.* This policy and its effects reach beyond The Pink Bubble™ and drawing attention to bigotry is an act of taking power from those who wish to harm.

Hundreds of alumni are rallying around this letter right now. The contrast between it and what she received in return is no less than shocking, though disappointingly unsurprising. Quite frankly, I think this letter taught the students just as much, if not more, than the cancelled event.