As a current student of Southwestern University, this campus can feel like a bubble away from the real world at times. It’s students' own special place for them to transition into the people they’ll be once they graduate. To many, it feels safer than the real world. However, was this always the case, especially for LGBTQ+ Southwestern students?

To answer this question, I decided to interview several Southwestern alumni to gain personal insights on their experiences of being queer students. While their stories may differ, they each offer a distinctive lens to see how times have changed over the decades.

To Eric Timm ‘93 and Hector Ruiz ‘10, coming out was something that happened mostly after their time at SU had come to a close. Before graduation, Eric came out to a few trusted people. By the time summer was in full swing, it seemed like common knowledge amongst his friends and fraternity. To this day, he is still unsure of who exactly outed him, but after returning for homecoming, he only had positive experiences.

Hector never came out during his time here, but he says people always “just knew.” He lived his life in a way that put authenticity above everything else. He recalls many others were still coming into their identities, and were given a space at SU Allies, because students didn’t have to be gay to be welcomed as a club member. Allies provided a space that welcomed everyone, and wasn’t just for students that were out as being queer.

Other students like Ame Barrier ‘97 and Jason Ragsdale ‘96 recall being the only students that were out on campus. In fact, on a whim, Ame came out at an event to take the pressure off of Jason, as he was facing a lot of homophobia. She doesn’t recall ever planning to come out, and she found the words escaping her before considering the weight of these actions.

While talking to Jason, I wanted to hear his full story of spending a year being the “token gay”, and the more we talked, the more information I got. So many people today describe Southwestern as a safe place with only minor negative things to say about their experiences with homophobia. Jason’s perspective was entirely different. Eventually, the homophobia and hate that Jason faced was too much, and he didn’t finish his degree at SU.

Jason describes Southwestern as “doing me wrong” from both the death threats he faced from other students, and administration's lack of action once he reported it. Jason looks back and shares that most of his time at SU was spent being scared for his life. This hate was more than playful banter; it was damaging to his life and wellbeing..

Back to Ame Barrier, they soon went onto creating The Sexual Orientation Awareness League (SOAL), as well as being a member of the Gender Awareness Center, and a familiar face in the feminist and queer spaces on campus. From both a researcher’s and queer student’s perspective, I came away from our interview with a lot of respect for Ame and how they shaped campus both during and after their time as a student.

Jim Zallez ‘82 has an experience similar to most LGBTQ+ SU students, regardless of the time. While Jim was a student, most of his fellow queer students could be found in the Fine Arts Building. During this time, being queer wasn’t often discussed, and students were free to live their lives without question. He also shares the importance of professors during this time, including Dr. Jan Dawson, for being supportive of both women and queer issues.

Lisa De la Cruz ‘08 also shows appreciation for professors creating safe, inclusive, and supportive environments for students to grow as themselves. She reflects having more support of her queerness from professors than from other people in administration.

Unfortunately, I was only able to contact one transgender alum to ask about their experience. Most likely this is because transgender students have always faced a different kind of hate than queer students, and consequently they have had a more difficult time sharing their authentic selves. They are people who are rarely recognized, and often don’t have the safety to disclose themself as a trans person.

While I only get to share the perspective of one student, I am still committed to learning and sharing the stories of trans people before me. Anonymous ‘20 shares that they thankfully never faced any transphobia. While they were a part of Pirates 4 Pride, they had a lot of curiosity come from peers within their major and department. Most people just wanted to learn what it was like to be transgender, and otherwise respected this person’s boundaries.

As far as my own perspective goes, I share the same sentiment as many others, which is that Southwestern feels like its own “bubble.” SU has the ability to make you forget about the world outside of it. When experiencing a place with so much support, it’s easy to forget just how far we still have to go to be free from homophobia, transphobia, and general prejudice beyond campus, especially in Texas.

All of my professors have respected my chosen name, and never once have I felt discriminated against in the classroom. However, I do have the privilege of being in the Feminist Studies program, which is filled with the most supportive people I have had the pleasure of interacting with. I know there’s a lot of hate in the world, but being a student at Southwestern gives me the hope that there are safe spaces wherever you go.

As current President of Pirates 4 Pride, SU’s current organization that supports queer students and their allies, I have had a lot of opportunities to talk to my peers about their experiences, and they confirm my sense that the climate for queer students at Southwestern is more supportiuve on campus than elsewhere. Firstly, I would like to preface that P4P is primarily made up of white students, so this is not to say that students of color have had the same experiences as the ones I have heard.

It is particularly significant that transgender and nonbinary students say that they have faced no recent incidents of homophobia or transphobia on campus. One student I spoke to this summer says that professors and students alike have all been willing to learn, and correct themselves in cases of insensitivity based on lack of education in subjects about being queer. The idea of a “bubble” still feels true to these individuals. Additionally, several queer students told me they are starting to feel safer in Georgetown as a whole as well, and have had supportive experiences during queer centered events in the city.

From talking to these alumni, I know that that has not always been the case, and it didn’t just happen by itself, so I am thankful for the work that previous generations of students, faculty, and staff have done to build a more inclusive culture for LGBTQ+ students at Southwestern.

Author’s Afterword

Throughout working on this project, I have felt a connection to people that I had no idea existed only two months earlier. Combing through editions of The Megaphone, frantically writing down names that would often appear, sending countless numbers of emails to people who had no clue about my existence, and making more phone calls than I ever thought I would, has brought me closer to my community.

Every email response lead me closer to feeling like I just might be doing something that is more than myself. Every person that shared their story with a virtual stranger, brought me one step closer to doing something I’m proud of.

Just saying I’m grateful doesn’t seem to cover it. I found something throughout this project. I found a passion, I found a direction, I found that community is far bigger than what you could ever imagine. This is your sign to do research, spend hours hunched over in the archives, email strangers, and listen to people’s stories. You’ll never know what you might find. Maybe one day someone might even ask you for your story.

Memory work is crucial for preservation of underrepresented stories. I am honored to have this opportunity, and I offer my utmost gratitude to the people who helped me on this journey. You took time out of your busy schedule to talk to a random undergrad, and it changed my outlook.

For more (including 4 images) view the original article

You know her name from the building that features her name, but do you know who Alma Thomas was?

Alma Thomas was the second woman to serve on the Board of Trustees and is easily remembered as one of the most dedicated and generous donors to Southwestern.

She spent most of her adult life living on a ranch with her husband and two sons. When her husband passed away after falling off a windmill in 1923, she and her sons barely kept the ranch going. That is until the discovery of oil on their land completely flipped their financial situation. With their new-found fortune, Alma and her sons attended and graduated from the University of Texas.

Alma Thomas was introduced to Southwestern’s President William Finch in 1949 through her pastor. Thomas and Finch immediately hit it off and Alma Thomas was his first nomination for the Board of Trustees. She was elected to be on the board in 1950 and she served until 1977.

As soon as she joined the Board she immediately started financially supporting the school and its students. Within her first year, she gave out 5 scholarships for graduates of the Methodist home in Waco, where she was also a generous donor.

Alma was also a fanatical traveler and made it around the world twice, visiting 127 countries by 1971, famously even visiting the North Pole. She used her experiences from around the world to her advantage and to help students. She would give talks on campus, one of them when she returned from visiting the Soviet Union in 1958. On her return and speaking with students, Alma declared “all peoples but not all governments want to be friends”

Alma Thomas was a lover of the arts, and a patron of the Austin Symphony. With this love of music, Mrs. Thomas endowed the School of Fine Arts at Southwestern with a goal to better promote the music program here at Southwestern.

She sent a letter to President Finch fully committing herself to the project and providing $25,000 to the Fine Arts Building Fund. Interestingly, she did not choose the amount to give. She told President Finch to build the building “within reason,” and that she would provide for what the school needed. Mrs. Thomas paid through the deeds of mineral, oil, and gas royalties. This gift from Alma Thomas was nothing short of sacrificial, as her overall income was cut by ⅓ to finish the building.

Mrs. Alma Thomas is a keystone in our school's history, and everyone knew that from the very start. When the building was dedicated, she was presented with a full-body portrait to hang in the foyer of the Fine Arts Building.

During the unveiling, the portrait “crashed to the ground,” and in response, Alma Thomas simply said: “I now belonged to the big class of fallen women.”

Despite being in the class of “fallen women,” Alma Thomas was elected as a permanent honorary trustee, and she was able to resign from the Board knowing that her legacy would live on through the theatre and Fine Arts Center named for her.

For more (including 2 images) view the original article

On September 21, 1976, Alma Thomas, the namesake of the Alma Thomas Fine Arts Center, donated a collection of eight Royal Doulton “Great Lady” figurines to Southwestern University.

The “Great Ladies” were created especially for the coronation of England’s Queen Elizabeth II, in 1952. Mrs. Thomas was present for the coronation, where she purchased these objects that celebrated Elizabeth’s rise to power by honoring powerful women from England’s past.

The collection comes from the Royal Doulton manufacturer in London. Founded in 1815, Royal Doulton specialize in ceramics, stoneware, and China. According to their website, they collaborate with artists and designers to create pieces that celebrate and empower women.

This particular collection of eight “period figures” was designed by Peggy Davies just after World War II to honor women who played a significant role in the events that shaped England. Thanks to Alma Thomas, Southwestern University is the “permanent residence for these Great Ladies.”

These figurines represented the ideal of exemplary womanhood as it was understood in the 1950s, when Thomas purchased them. Most of these women were seen as leaders working behind the scenes of their male counterparts. They also faced adversity in many forms, whether it be denial of a right to power or even mortal combat.

As such, these Great Lady figurines represent a form of first-wave feminism, which focused on advocacy for women's rights and challenging power structures, while generally still conforming to traditional femininity.

According to the pamphlet produced to celebrate the gift by Alma Thomas, Philippa of Hainault and Maria Fitzherbert were chosen for their kindhearted approach and supportive nature to their husbands. These women were also very popular among city folk and would serve regents while their husbands were away. They would garner massive support for their husbands and contribute substantially to their reign. By representing England through elegance and kindness, these ladies were able to symbolize strong forms of feminism that worked within patriarchal systems, giving them the ability to be liked by all while still maintaining a position of control.

Two other "Great Ladies," Florence Nightingale and Eleanor of Provence, challenged traditional gender roles that placed men in positions of power and leadership. They each maintained a strong period of power in which they improved the lives of others. Eleanor was in total control of her husband during his reign and would accommodate family members in need. Florence Nightingale established a nursing practice that transformed healthcare across England. Both these ladies challenged the roles women played in English society and broke the chains holding back women's careers and political influence.

Each of these women challenged how women were thought of as purely domestic. It is for this reason these great ladies not only signify the powerful women they are depicting, but how exemplary women were viewed during the time of Elizabeth II’s coronation.

This is also how Alma Thomas saw them as well, as more than just “great ladies,” but as a reflection of exemplary femininity she hoped would inspire the Southwestern students who encountered them. This collection therefore carries with it the memories of not only these ladies but of Alma Thomas herself.

In this context, it is important to remember that the Fine Arts have always been intertwined with gender relations in the history of Southwestern as an institution. Fine Arts used to be housed in the Ladies Annex, and later the Women’s Building, which was later renamed Laura Kuykendall Hall.

After World War II, some additional art studio spaces were located in adapted military barracks right next to LK Hall, and theater productions were often staged in the auditorium of the Administration Building, but before the Fine Arts Building was built in 1955, Fine Arts classes were mainly taught to female students and were located in female-centric spaces.

The Fine Arts Building itself arose thanks to the generosity and vision of a very successful woman, Alma Thomas, whose initial financial gifts to the University made the building possible and who was the only female member of the Board of Trustees for years. That is why the “Great Ladies” seem to represent not only Alma Thomas herself, but the history of Fine Arts at Southwestern.

=========================================================

The acceptance ceremony for the “Great Ladies” was held in the Fine Arts Building, which itself owes a lot to the generosity of Alma Thomas and to this day is a place that remembers her in multiple ways.

The ceremony took place in the gallery, with comfortable seating for Mrs. Thomas, who by then was in a wheelchair, and her guests. Afterward guests were also invited to a luncheon, hosted in the University Commons. Her presence alone was said to have “lighted the place up!”

When Mrs. Thomas was describing the figurines in her speech, she placed herself as someone that stood among them as a fellow "great lady." In phrasing that could just as easily be applied to her, Thomas said that a great lady is “a wonderful, compassionate woman who stepped outside her magic circle to help people not so fortunate, creating an atmosphere of love and kindness.”

After her speech, the acceptance ceremony began. Durwood Fleming accepted the artifacts with a heartfelt speech of gratitude to Mrs. Thomas. Claude Kennard (Southwestern’s Art Historian at the time) then explained the priceless value and history of the figurines.

Finally, the Dean of Fine Arts at the time, Dr. Theodore Lucas, gave his thanks and described their condition and how they would be held in the Alma Thomas Gallery with all of her other “examples of Mrs. Thomas’ generosity.” The display was located adjacent to the Alma Thomas Theatre, in a display case designed by Jessen Associates, Inc. of Austin.

After the ceremony, guests were invited on a brief tour of the campus. During this, President Fleming and his wife invited Mrs. Thomas to the Turner-Fleming House for a brief interlude to take some well-needed rest. Then, they would all gather in the University Commons for a buffet and “good time of eating and fellowship together.”

During the luncheon, Alma Thomas recited an excerpt from one of her favorite poems, “It is later than you think” author unknown (figure 4). Durwood Fleming later referred to it as the “get up and go” poem.

In the specific section of the poem that Mrs. Thomas recited, the author reflects on the different stages of a woman’s life, and talks about passing the torch on to future generations once your “get up and go has got up and went.”

Reciting these words at this event, alongside the Great Ladies, solidified the message that Mrs. Thomas had lived a fulfilled life and wanted to empower future generations to do the same. Within the context of the ceremony, we can infer that these figurines themselves were meant to be long-lasting symbols of empowerment specifically towards future SU students, particularly female students.

=========================================================

Seeing her last gift to future students established in a prominent place in a building named after her that day in 1976, just a few years before she died, Alma Thomas probably imagined that they would serve that purpose for many generations to come, but that is not what happened.

Currently, these figurines are being stored away in a box in the University Archives. In my own experience, I only learned about them because I was researching the history of the Fine Arts Building and stumbled upon a mention of them in Bill Jones’ The Survive and Excel. From there, I had to do a lot of digging to find where they are now and why.

According to archival records, in 2015 they were first transferred to the University Archives from the Business office vault, which for many years had become a kind of safe deposit box for artifacts and records owned by the University. In my research, I was never able to determine when exactly the display was removed from the Fine Arts Building or how they got from the Fine Arts Building to the vault in the first place.

Records do show that 2015 was the first time when it was mentioned, between April Hampton Perez and Ted Lucas (the former Dean of Fine Arts who had so graciously accepted the Mrs. Thomas's gift originally and pledged to care for them), that SU no longer wanted to retain the figurines. That’s when the SU Archives agreed to take them, and that is where they have been ever since except for a brief moment in 2019 when they were displayed publicly in the Library.

Nothing in those communications in 2015 indicates why campus leaders did not consider the figurines worth displaying any more, much less holding onto.

Approaching this from the vantage point of 2026, when the School of Fine Arts and the building that houses it are clearly suffering, the long journey of the figurines from a place of prominence to a place of neglect starts to take on even more symbolism.

That is why I believe we should all take another look at these “Great Ladies.” By storing these artifacts in a box in the Archives instead of within the Fine Arts Building, we are not only losing access to the memory of what they represented in a previous time but also missing an opportunity to learn from them as we try to re-establish the Fine Arts School as a place of innovation and inspiration for students.

Returning these “Great Ladies” and their symbolic meaning to a prominent public place within the Alma Thomas Fine Arts Building can not only help educate and empower a new generation of young female students but hopefully rekindle a remembrance of the enduring spirit of Alma Thomas herself.

For more (including 7 images) view the original article

The Southwestern Lacrosse team was the first in Texas to become an official NCAA team and as of today, Southwestern has the only NCAA-affiliated varsity team in Texas for both men’s and women’s lacrosse.

At a school that has played such an integral role in the expansion of lacrosse in Texas and the American South and Southwest, you would think that this would be something everyone knows, but there seems to be a general lack of knowledge about how the team began and just how far it has come since its inaugural season. Additionally, it is important to look at this history to have a better understanding of how having a lacrosse team relates to Southwestern’s identity as a national liberal arts university.

The story of SU Lacrosse begins in the 1983-84 school year when the team first came together as a club. The club met at different times throughout the week for practices. The twenty-four person roster was recognized in the 1984 yearbook, but the team had yet to gain much traction across campus. The first couple of seasons were difficult and the charter members had a hard time putting together a team that remained consistent due to injuries, illness, and other priorities.

It wasn’t until the third season that the team was able to pull off a win. Finally in the 1988 season, the team experienced their first winning season with a record of 7-6. This was a huge milestone for the club and it provided hope to team members at the time that the future of the program could be a lasting one.

Through documentation in yearbooks and The Megaphone, we see the progression of the team throughout these first couple of years. Then, in 1989, we are given the story of an incredible season where the club lost only one game and won the league championship versus The University of Texas. Part of the reason the team was so successful this semester is because of the support from the Southwestern community who would consistently show up for the members of the team.

Following the monumental season for the 1989 lacrosse team, there are a few years worth of coverage in The Megaphone about notable games and/or players, but as the years go on the information seems to dwindle.

A common problem that the team seemed to have until about 2000 was a lack of players. Additionally, the team struggled for a few years starting in 1995 because their original coach, Monty Curtis, left and finding a replacement proved to be a difficult feat. This had a huge impact on how well the team was able to do and whether or not they could even play in certain games. Throughout this time, though, the Southwestern community continued to support the team and encouraged them to continue fighting to keep the team alive.

Despite their hardships, they continued on and started picking up more players. Lacrosse eventually started to gain more interest on campus, and in the 2001 yearbook the creation of a women’s club team is documented. Up to that point, women who wanted to play lacrosse had played on the men’s team.

There are a few articles over the next six years that mention men’s and women’s lacrosse club teams and how both teams continue to grow and improve. After 2007 though, there is little to no documentation of the lacrosse teams on campus until they’re made NCAA sports in 2010 (men’s) and 2013 (women’s).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The current men’s lacrosse coach, Bill Bowman, is entering his 28th season as a coach, with 12 of those seasons being during the club days of the sport. That means that he has experienced the years that we have little documentation about. Bowman was also involved with the team during his time as a student at Southwestern and played in the 1989 and 1990 seasons.

When I sat down to talk with Coach Bowman, he stated that he had never played lacrosse before he came to Southwestern, but once he joined the team, he immediately fell in love with the sport. I also learned from Bowman that the team has a rich history, much of which he would document through writing and online documentation. However, all of this documentation seems to have disappeared despite his efforts to keep the history of the program alive.

Bowman said that years worth of game scores, player statistics, team statistics, and other little facts were digitized and that the digitized file is gone. This means that much of the history of lacrosse before 2010 relies on the people who were a part of the history to tell the stories. So, that is what Bowman did for me, and now I can now share it with you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In 2000, the club team consisted of both men and women, but with a growing number of women interested in the sport, they wanted to start their own team. One of these women in particular was so excited to start that when she went to the league meeting to get more information, she signed Southwestern up to compete with a women’s team (despite not having a coach or enough players for a team).

So starting in 2001, the women began practicing and Bowman would conduct the practices for the men and women at the same time. The following year, the women would play their first game against Trinity University in San Antonio, which they won 6-5. They would only play four games for the season but they proved themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

The main problem that arose for the women’s team was that they could not hold the numbers that they needed to field a team, much like the men when they first started. The men’s team, on the other hand, was thriving under the guidance of Coach Bowman. They were climbing up the ranks, getting as high as #9 in the entire nation in their final season as a club.

The women would go on to get a coach and win many more games before also converting to an NCAA sport in the 2013-14 school year. This was the same year that the football program was reinstated so adding the women’s lacrosse team was a way for the school to stay within the requirements of Title IX. This law requires the university to provide equitable opportunities for men and women to participate in sports on campus. By adding the women’s team the university could stay within these requirements while simultaneously expanding opportunities for participation in lacrosse in the South.

Both club teams were extremely successful, sending many players to All-American games and racking up recognitions for All–Conference selections. And with the start of their NCAA DIII status, the sports began documenting their games and important season information on the Southwestern Pirates website where that history still lives today.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, what difference does it make whether or not we know this information? For many of the people that were a part of the team in the past as well as those that still play today, lacrosse is a huge part of their lives. They have poured their hearts into the team and made an effort to leave a lasting impression that paved the way for what the team is able to become today.

Because of the determination of many of these athletes to keep the program going through hardships, Southwestern is able to continue making an outsized impact and making memories in the lacrosse world.

While the campus takes time to try and remember its history through buildings, names, stories and much more, we should also remember that specific athletic communities leave just as much of a lasting mark on campus life. The experiences shared by members of the lacrosse team deserve recognition because they represent decades of dedication, friendship, and the continuing evolution of Southwestern University.

Furthermore, looking at the history of lacrosse prompts us to question what it is about the school’s identity that allows a sport popular for decades in midwestern and East Coast states to thrive here in Texas, despite a lack of exposure to the sport in most Texas high schools. More specifically: what accounts for the success of lacrosse at Southwestern when other Texas schools with more resources and students, such as Rice, The University of Texas (UT), and Texas A&M, are not able to support varsity NCAA lacrosse programs for either gender, much less both?

Researching the history of the lacrosse programs at Southwestern has made me wonder if it is related to President Roy B. Shilling Jr.’s goal of “National Maturity” in the early 1980s, the exact moment that the story of lacrosse became intertwined with the story of Southwestern.

Shilling’s goal for Southwestern in the 1980s was to create a distinctive liberal arts institutional identity for the school that positioned Southwestern as a national liberal arts college instead of a Texas-focused, Methodist liberal arts college, which had been its identity for years.

Especially in the “preppy” 1980s, that meant projecting an image of Southwestern that resonated with the public image of East Coast liberal arts colleges, and their ties to East Coast college prep schools. And although lacrosse had origins in Native American culture and has since grown more inclusive nationally as well as at Southwestern, in the early 1980s, lacrosse was thoroughly associated with the culture of East Coast elite private prep schools and colleges that provided the model for Southwestern’s aspirations toward National Maturity.

Either way, though there have been some struggles since becoming a DIII program for both the men and women, the teams have become a part of the identity of Southwestern, even as that identity itself continues to evolve. Ultimately, this intertwining of lacrosse and Southwestern’s identity is what allows the team to persevere through hardships and what sets them apart from other programs.

For more (including 7 images) view the original article

Established in 1927 as a local chapter of the National Collegiate Players, the Mask and Wig Club at Southwestern University grew from a creative writing class where students crafted their own stories and scripts. These student-led productions were eventually integrated into the speech and drama department, starting the beginning of an endless relationship between Mask and Wig as a student organization and academic departments focused on Drama, Expression, and Theatre.

The club began gaining traction among Southwestern students as early as 1918, though it took nearly a decade to reach its official status. Once established, members would not only provide quality technical productions but also talented actors. According to a history of Mask and Wig written in the 1950s, many of these early performers were also deeply involved in campus media. For instance, Elizabeth Ann Little, a member of the club, served as the first female editor of the Southwestern Magazine. She was one of many editors of the Southwestern Magazine from Mask and Wig.

From the beginning, the club has been progressive in a lot of their performances. Their scripts often have functioned as social commentaries, promoting open discussions about campus life, academics, and residential culture, and providing commentary on social norms and injustice. They have presented these ideals in both performances and events all organized by the students. For example, one showing of “Harvey” in 1963 (Figure 1), highlighted several themes of family and American life. These themes did well in portraying the state of healthcare and the injustice associated with it at the time.

Beyond its commitments to stimulating conversations about social issues, Mask and Wig’s primary mission has always been to elevate the standard of dramatic art at Southwestern. Known particularly for their Shakespearean stagings and one-act plays, membership became one of the most prestigious achievements for theatre students. While open to the entire student body, joining required participation in at least two productions, This made sure all members were actively participating and contributing.

Professional guidance from various professors, played a crucial role in the formation and longevity of the club. The club’s first staff advisor, Mr. William Dwight Wentz, brought significant expertise from the National College of Oratory and the Chicago Drama League. Under his guidance, the group frequently performed in the Auditorium in the Administration Building (the building now called the Cullen Building, which used to have an auditorium spanning the 2nd and 3rd floors). However, their experimental one-act plays required a different kind of staging, so the troupe often had to gather in Wentz’s own backyard to perform for the community.

According to the current student presidents, Mask and Wig has always been a student run organization, where advisors such as Wentz provide more of a supportive role. With the help of these advisors behind the scenes, the club's student officers can manage and organize their own events. Student teams of writers, props, makeup, costume designers and actors help to make productions and events happen.

In 1930, Ernest R. Hardin took the helm as staff advisor, supported by Dean of Women Laura Kuykendall, who also was the Director of the Expression Department at the time. This era was defined by increased mobility and recognition; the club traveled over 3,000 miles to perform various one-act plays. A notable milestone occurred in 1937 when their production of James M. Barrie’s "The Twelve Pound Look" competed in the Intercollegiate One-act Play tournament in El Paso. By the early 1940s, leadership transitioned again, with Thomas Marsh and Jane Frazer guiding the group.

According to a Mask and Wig handbook from 1968, in the year 1943 they became the "Mask and Wig Players" just as Angus Springer became the new staff advisor. Springer discovered the old Administration Building Auditorium stage in terrible shape, due to the original contractor tearing up all the lumber to use for other repairs. Since this was during the war, lumber was scarce.

The Auditorium’s “lighting system” was made up of six porcelain sockets and a single open knife switch. Springer decided to fix it up a little to make a place for the players to perform. It was mainly renovated by sailors who were a part of the Navy V-12 training unit on campus. A set featuring scenery eight feet tall was built with drapes in the foreground and background. Springer himself built the first dimmer board.

While Springer was in charge of the Drama and Speech Department, the Players staged 75 major productions. Their reputation grew such that audiences would trek even through heavy snow to attend performances. The group continued to excel in competition. According to a University of Houston 1944 article, they qualified for one of their tournaments in April.

This same year the Goosetree-Morgan award was founded by two Southwestern students, Anna Beth Goosetree and John Morgan. The award was an old tractor axle found at a local junk yard. This quickly became a tradition for the performers. After each major production, the previous winners would decide on the next recipient. The chosen actor will be honored as one who has done the best job in the role of a supporting actor. No member of faculty played any part in the award, it was entirely brought about by students.

The post-war era in 1946 brought a surge of male student actors back to campus, leading to some of the club’s most acclaimed work. Their production of "Antigone" earned a two-page color spread in a Houston newspaper and was the first amateur showing of the Jean Anouilh play in the United States. According to a 1946 issue of Southwestern Magazine, prominent student actors such as Joe Jefferson emerged during this time, leading productions such as "Winterset" and "I Remember Mama" before moving the production to the Pasadena Playhouse. To reach these far audiences, the players traveled in an iconic bus they nicknamed the "Yellow Peril."

The landscape for Mask and Wig changed forever in 1955 with the construction of the Alma Thomas Theatre. This new home allowed the program to flourish, with attendance often reaching 75% of the entire university population in its heyday. In 1965, a production of "A Midsummer Night’s Dream" epitomized this success, playing to capacity crowds and receiving rave reviews for its "Excellent" performances.

Today, the Mask and Wig Players remains the second-longest-standing student organization in Southwestern’s history (after the Megaphone). They still maintain their progressive outlook on society and campus life portrayed with their productions and hosted events. For instance, in April 2025 they performed productions of both “Men on Boats” and “BKLYN,” which are two stories that are known for challenging social norms.

They continue to be a central part of the Theatre Department and the wider campus community, hosting collaborative events and performances like these, maintaining the high standards of dramatic art established a century ago.

For more (including 11 images) view the original article

This June, 2026, marks 27 years of Pride Month. This is the month where queer people celebrate their identity, as well as thank those that came before them. We thank those who put their lives on the line for people today to live authentically. While pride has always been a protest, it has not always been as accessible as it is now.

I had the absolute honor of chatting with different generations of Southwestern University’s queer students, where I asked the question of what pride means to them.

Jim Croxford (Zalles) ‘82: Jim shares that during his time at SU, “pride” wasn’t a term used like it is today. Being proud and authentic wasn’t something that was celebrated in the way we celebrate it now. However, to Jim, pride means being a person that is 100% authentic. Whether that be your sexuality, gender, race, class, or anything in between, Jim understands pride as an all encompassing concept that shapes a person’s life.

Jason Ragsdale: ‘96: When thinking about Pride, Jason recognizes his privilege of growing older. He has lived through a time where no one was out, and now he sees how quickly representation has changed. However, he is glad the cause is persisting, and calls pride a representation of “collective unity.”

Ame Barrier ‘97: To Ame, pride means something different that it does to others. She believes pride is looking back at history and those that came before us. It’s about creating safe spaces throughout history, and across different spaces. Pride is showing that as a community, we can survive anything, and we won’t be erased. We are here to stay.

Hector Ruiz ‘10: Hector highlights that while many people think of pride as being out and loud, he sees it as something that is as simple as just showing up. He recognizes that not everyone has the privilege to be out, so to him, pride is showing up for those people for everyone regardless of where they are in their journey with their sexuality.

Kayla Ingram ‘20: To fully understand how Kayla sees pride, she shares a story from her time at SU. She faced a lot of pushback while planning the 2018 Transgender Day of Remembrance Vigil. She was feeling worn down, and almost defeated from planning this event. This is when a member suggested a “yarn bombing”. Members of Pirates 4 Pride sat outside of McCombs Campus Center, and wrapped yarn around two of the flagpoles. Random students then joined them, and suddenly they crocheted hearts to weave in, they made art to hang up, they brought their own ribbon and yarn and shiny things. In that moment of being silly and childlike, they were a community. They were bonded not only by holding the vigil in the face of backlash, but also by sharing a time of joy. To Kayla Ingram, pride is finding joy as a community despite all of the negatives.

Anonymous ‘20: As a transgender person, this person sees pride as better getting to know oneself. They recognize that the unknown can provoke a lot of fear, but pride brings acceptance with it. However, it is a process, so it is important to be kind to yourself while you go on this journey of self discovery.

Anonymous ‘25: When asking this person what pride means to them, they provided me with some of the most moving words I’ve heard since asking this question. To them, pride ranges from gender affirming haircuts, getting called sir, their HRT shot waiting in a drawer, and experiencing life with their fem. But it’s about more than that too. It’s about supporting and protecting their trans siblings, leaving flowers on their graves, and generally being there for your community. As they said, “Pride is how we continue to survive and fight.”

When starting this project, I had my answer of what pride meant to me, but as I connected with more LGBTQ+ people who have inhabited this place before me, my perspective shifted. While pride is still the people I love, the family I have chosen, and the life I live, it is also more than that. It’s about being in love with someone not despite, but regardless of what people may say. It’s about holding hands in public, wearing the clothes I feel the most myself in, and standing on my tiptoes to kiss my girlfriend’s cheek.

While the phrase “love is love” is cheesy and overused, so many people fought for us to even have this phrase to use. I have felt a great sense of pride from getting to connect with my ancestors in the struggle. I quite simply would not be here without them and the work that they have done.

Pride is sharing these stories. Pride is memory.

For more (including 3 images) view the original article

On-campus activism focused on global and local issues has been of longstanding importance to students at Southwestern University. This activism has taken many forms over the years and has covered a wide variety of topics, changing depending on what students felt was important at the time.

However, while many of these organizations made changes to campus policies and practices that have had a long-lasting impact on the community and campus culture, many past organizations responsible for enacting these changes are not currently remembered by current students at Southwestern.

One reason for that is that not only have the focus of the organizations changed over time, but oftentimes the names of organizations focused on specific issues have changed as well. All of this makes tracing the history of student activism at Southwestern difficult to trace, much less feel.

The purpose of this entry is to trace the history of one of the more influential groups from the late 1980s, the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort, or S.C.O.P.E., to show how the group was formed, what it accomplished, and how it built the foundation for activist groups that followed it, including many social justice advocacy groups associated with the JEDI Center today.

S.C.O.P.E. was an important precursor to contemporary social justice student organizations that especially should be remembered by current student activists.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort (S.C.O.P.E.) was a non-profit, non-partisan, educational student organization on Southwestern University’s campus from Fall 1985 to Fall 1990. They were a faction of Voice, an umbrella student organization that aimed to stimulate the discussions of controversial issues. S.C.O.P.E. was originally created to raise awareness for the need for nuclear disarmament and to speak about the United States’ military involvement in Central America.

S.C.O.P.E.’s first meeting place was in the meeting rooms attached to the old Round Commons behind the Chapel, which is the pin location for this entry. As the organization grew and began changing leadership, they started meeting in the Faculty Lounge and eventually in different locations around Smith Library Center. Throughout the five years they operated, they met at 6 pm or 8 pm every Thursday, depending on which location they were at during that period.

Their aim was to educate students, staff, and faculty about nuclear disarmament and how to participate in political advocacy. They wrote to legislators and circulated petitions, including one sent to President Reagan in 1985 with 170 SU signatures. They sponsored speakers from the United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War (UCAM), and went to local and national anti-war demonstrations.

S.C.O.P.E. held lots of events on and off campus throughout the ten semesters they existed. The most notable being Peace Week, hosted twice during their time. The first Peace Week was hosted from March 24-27, 1986. At the center of the event was a three day long art show full of anti-war art created by SU students and Georgetown community members in the Union. The show was titled Artists for Peace.

They also hosted a segment titled Performers for Peace, which featured short skits, poems, book/story readings, and musical performances. S.C.O.P.E. furthered its relationship with UCAM by inviting them to speak on campus, as well. They hosted other speakers and lecturers about peace-related issues. Finally, they got permission to play peace-oriented music March 24-26 during dinner in the Commons.

In the fall semester of 1986, S.C.O.P.E. began their official affiliation with UCAM. They hosted a membership drive September 11-12 and 15-17 in the Commons during lunch and dinner. UCAM had a $10 membership fee that gave members a UCAM newsletter, UCAM Network News, and eligibility to participate in the US-Soviet exchange program.

This is also the first time the organization established leadership positions. In the September 12, 1986 Megaphone, S.C.O.P.E. congratulated their newly elected officers for the upcoming school year. Jennie Jones served as President with Cami Cunningham as her Vice President. Wendy Hoefke served as the Treasurer, Tasha Clark as the Corresponding Secretary, and Debbie Volker as the Recording Secretary.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Within just the first two semesters of existing, S.C.O.P.E. found itself in the middle of public political debates on campus. The most prominent of these was with Mike Flaniken, a staff member on the Megaphone at the time. This was in the middle of the Reagan presidency, and Mike frequently wrote under a column titled “The Right View,” where he represented himself as a spokesperson for conservative students on campus.

This public debate reveals a lot about student politics at the time, but also reveals how students then used the platforms available to them at the time--Megaphone columns, Megaphone Letters to the Editor, public spaces, and even Campus Mail--to communicate to each other in a ways very different than students do today.

The first opinion piece Mike published about S.C.O.P.E. was titled “The Choice Between Peace and Freedom” and came out on September 26, 1986. In this issue, Mike claimed that the peace movement posed a threat to the American way of life, and singled out S.C.O.P.E. He also claimed that the Soviet Union did not have an equivalent peace movement to what was happening in the United States. He felt that anything stating otherwise was propaganda.

S.C.O.P.E. President Jennie Jones and member Tasha Clark both wrote letters to the editor in the issue published the following Friday, October 3, 1986. The two corrected the misinformation spread by Mike about the organization and peace activists in general. Additionally, they both invited him to attend a S.C.O.P.E. meeting to get a better understanding of the group, what they discuss, and what they stand for. Jennie specifically mentioned how the organization is welcoming to anyone and that they invite people with differing opinions to attend to aid in a mutual discussion and understanding of one another.

In response to these letters, Mike wrote a full page rebuttal in the following Megaphone issue, published October 17, 1986. In this rebuttal, he claims that S.C.O.P.E. does not actually educate their members as they state, but rather shows only one side of a story- the “radical” left side. He reiterates his belief that S.C.O.P.E.’s claims that the USSR peace movement even exists is propaganda. Finally, Mike explains how he is not interested in attending a S.C.O.P.E. meeting because he already knows the ideals they hold. He ends the article asking for any further commentary to be sent to his campus mail box directly instead of in the form of a public letter to the editor.

Despite his attempt to shut down this discussion and remove it from the Megaphone, on October 31, 1986 the newspaper published the final closing statements of this argument. Jennie, once again, tries to correct Mike on his statements and educate him about his spread of misinformation. She also mentions how he wanted this discussion to continue occurring outside of the Megaphone, countering that she believed that by allowing this to play out in the newspaper, students would spark thought and discussion about the arms race.

The final comment on this debate was actually made by another student, non-S.C.O.P.E. member, Jay Richards. He explains how week after week he, along with other students, read something Mike has written and understand that he only presents his one-sided version of reality. Jay calls out Mike’s hypocrisy stating that S.C.O.P.E. needed to present arguments from both sides, yet he refuses to attend one of their meetings. Jay explains how he, too, has never attended a S.C.O.P.E. meeting but that is exactly why he does not aim to explain to the group what they do or do not believe. He ends his critique against Mike by mentioning how he does not know if his arguments are right or wrong, but he does know that they are inherently flawed because he globally discounts the ideas and perspectives of his opponents.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In January of 1987, UCAM selected Southwestern University S.C.O.P.E. to represent the state of Texas for the 1987 Lobby Day/ Leadership training hosted in Washington D.C. It was held April 9th and 10th of that year. This was UCAM’s fourth annual national lobby effort to try and stop the arms race, with the main goal of the event to encourage individuals to express their concern directly to Congressional offices in D.C.

S.C.O.P.E. was selected due to their dedication to the cause, their continued education on the Southwestern campus, and because of how young many of the individuals in the organization were. UCAM wanted to show that the talk about the youth not caring about the arms race was merely a myth by allowing a large, active student-led organization to hold such an important role in the event.

After the trip to DC, UCAM also proved helpful in educating S.C.O.P.E. and asking them to do the same to the general public at Southwestern University. UCAM sent a timeline explaining President Reagan’s decision to nullify the 1972 Arms Control Treaty. Once S.C.O.P.E. received this timeline, they ensured that it was added into the Megaphone in order to reach the student population.

On February 4th and 5th of 1987, four S.C.O.P.E. members travelled to the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site to participate in an organized non-violent protest. The goal of the protest was to draw attention towards peace and anti-nuclear movements across the country. It was hosted by the American Peace Test and Peace Caucus of the American Public Health Association.

The protestors were divided into two groups, those who decided to participate in civil disobedience and those who did not. Protestors were not allowed to cross into the government’s property during the rally, but 438 individuals intentionally did so. They peacefully accepted arrest and used it as a means to show how dedicated they were to the cause.

Only one S.C.O.P.E. member was arrested at this protest, Tasha Clark. Tasha explained afterward in a Megaphone article published February 20, 1987, how she preferred to get arrested than just have to pay a fine. She explained how willingly serving the six days proved her devotion to the cause.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Due to how successful the first Peace Week was the year prior, S.C.O.P.E. planned a second one from February 9-12, 1987. This second annual Peace Week also included a peace-themed art show, this one for the entire week instead of just three days.

In part to counter Mike Flaniken’s claims that S.C.O.P.E did not accurately educate their members on both sides of a problem the previous semester, they invited more prominent speakers with credentials to this Peace Week. A professor of Latin American History from the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Jenny Barnett, presented a slideshow about Central America along with a discussion on ways to gain peace for the region. They also hosted Jerry Locke, a veteran of the Vietnam war and representative of the Central American Peace Initiatives, alongside two other veterans and representatives. The three of them spoke about the United States’ continued involvement in Central American affairs.

Peace Week also had speakers from the Peace Project come to talk about becoming a more peace-minded individual. S.C.O.P.E. managed to secure a videotape of Carl Sagan from the Peace Project that was played in the Faculty Lounge in the SUB.

The second Peace Week was incredibly successful. S.C.O.P.E. was able to host much larger events and invite more speakers to the campus. Its success made it seem like Peace Week would be an annual event every February at SU. Unfortunately, the 1987 Peace Week was the last ever one hosted at this University. Today, among students and most faculty and staff, there is no collective memory of it having occurred and nothing commemorating what S.C.O.P.E. and Peace Week did for the campus.

In the fall semester, S.C.O.P.E. hosted a speaker from the American Peace Test in the library AV room. The individual showed a presentation about an upcoming action at the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site. The advertisement for this event was published in the Megaphone in an issue that was released on September 18, 1987, three days before the speaker would be on campus. Alongside this advertisement, S.C.O.P.E. mentioned how they are welcoming anyone to come attend the one hour lecture. This was one of their final events focusing solely on disarmament before they began opening up the organization towards other peace issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fall of 1988 brought a large change in how S.C.O.P.E. operated and what they valued. Roxanne Simpkin, member of S.C.O.P.E. and writer on the Megaphone at the time, explained in a newspaper issue published September 15, 1988, how the organization was founded with the goal of educating and growing hope for a better world. She states how every member in the organization is equal and that they have a right to stand up for what they believe in. Additionally, no one is forced to do anything they do not wish to do.

Roxanne goes on to mention how S.C.O.P.E. will begin focusing on multiple issues, not just disarmament. They announce how they will be involved with Amnesty International and SANE Freeze, along with homelessness and community outreach in Georgetown. They will not entirely give up on discussing nuclear issues and the United States involvement in Central America, however, they aim to do things in Georgetown to directly promote peace and happiness here.

Sticking with their plan, in February of 1989, S.C.O.P.E. hosted Alison Brause of United Farm Workers (UFW). She began their meeting by offering donuts to anyone who attended. Before she handed them over, she sprayed Raid on each donut. When no one decided to take the donuts anymore, Alison explained how the same type of pest-killers are sprayed onto our food. She stated how it is a danger to anyone who consumes this food but the risk is much larger for those who work on these farms.

Brause talked about how beyond the rashes and sickness these workers experience, the long-term exposure can cause birth defects or even cancer to the children of these workers. This is why the UFW supported legislation to stop the use of these pesticides and to find alternative, safer farming methods. She calls for the students to boycott grapes and other fruits and vegetables, in combination with the boycott started in California by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.

Beyond just the boycott, SU students heard about the 37 day fast completed by Cesar Chavez along with his urge to continue the fast chain around the country. The fast on SU campus began with S.C.O.P.E. member, Tasha, who fasted for three days before passing it along to James Rodriguez. He planned to fast for three days, as well, and pass it along to Rebecca Cheney. Additionally, students also gathered signatures around campus for a petition on behalf of UFW.

Along with adding the workers movement to their list of concerns, S.C.O.P.E. began focusing on recycling and environmental issues. In a Megaphone article published September 14, 1989, S.C.O.P.E. explained how they are planning a recycling campaign on campus for paper and aluminum cans starting that fall semester.

Additionally, they aimed to educate students about these environmental problems. Their first method of education was showing The Lorax written by Dr. Seuss on the Student Union Building Veranda the upcoming Saturday night. Afterwards, they sponsored an event titled Give Peace a Dance/Give Earth a Chance, also located on the Veranda.

The following month, S.C.O.P.E also hosted a meeting in the Smith Library Center to speak about a plethora of new issues. This included speaking about reproductive rights along with the housing crisis and Housing Now! march that had recently taken place in Washington D.C. They also used the time to continue their discussion on recycling and certain environmental initiatives on campus. This meeting, and its announcement in the October 12, 1989 edition of the Megaphone, marks the first mention of S.C.O.P.E. working with other organizations at SU. For instance, they sponsored the Coffee House with the English Society.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

While S.C.O.P.E. was initially only involved in disarmament, the organization grew to care for a multitude of issues as it expanded. They hosted lots of events throughout the five years they ran. However, the 1989 S.C.O.P.E. projects were what really pushed the organization in a new direction. This includes Earth Day, recycling initiatives, Rape Education Week, the Mobalize for Women’s Lives March, and fasting for OXFAM. Additionally, they made large changes in the structure of the organization.

In 1989, the group decided to get rid of hierarchical officer positions by creating a steering committee. The steering committee would lead the group by consensus. The committee was made up of Laura Cordes, Laura Wilson, Kim Crowder, Jill Ford, Heather Miller, Jeff Iezzi, and their faculty advisor from the Philosophy Department, Tom Blackburn.

All of this change caused the steering committee to believe that a name change was in order, as well. They collectively decided the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort will be renamed to the Progressive Student Alliance (P.S.A.).

The committee believed that P.S.A. is a more accurate title for what they would continue to do. They spoke about how P.S.A. is now no longer a coalition of peace-based concerns, but rather is open to the education of all social, political, and environmental issues. They also changed their meetings to every other Tuesday beginning September 11, 1990, at 8:30 pm in the Smith Library Center. Their first planned event was a coastal clean up in Galveston on September 22, 1990.

The Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort brought a large amount of change and education during its ten-semester run. They helped educate students not only about the arms race and disarmament, but also about different environmental and social problems. Beyond all that they did to serve the community, they also allowed friendship and distinctive collaborative leadership roles to flourish.

Despite its role in establishing a student culture of activism around a broad base of social justice issues, S.C.O.P.E. is not currently being actively commemorated on Southwestern University’s campus. It is up to current and future students to remember this organization and everything they did for our campus community.

S.C.O.P.E. held the incredibly successful Peace Week, an event that is pertinent now more than ever and could be started up again by current student groups in honor of the work the previous organization did. Additionally, S.C.O.P.E. was the first student organization to get the University to establish recycling efforts at SU.

For several decades now, environmental sustainability concerns have been important to many students on this campus, especially with groups such as SU Environmentalists (formerly SEAK, Students for Environmental Activism and Knowledge), but few of us know that these groups today are building on the foundation created by S.C.O.P.E.

These organizations are able to do what they do currently because of how S.C.O.P.E. helped SU through 1985 and 1990. S.C.O.P.E. also could serve as an inspiration for current student organizations trying to develop more collective forms of collaborative leadership.

S.C.O.P.E. and its members should be remembered for their long-lasting impact on this campus and our community. While their original meeting place no longer exists on this campus, the changes they implemented and their model of student leadership and advocacy do.

The work of the Student Coalition for an Organized Peace Effort did not end when the organization did. Rather, it lives on every time a student identifies an injustice and not only says “That should change,” but also, “I will work with other students to make sure it does.”

For more (including 3 images) view the original article

For several generations, the Smith Library Center has served as a central study spot for students. Across its three floors, the library offers a variety of spaces for collaboration, research, creation, and reflection, making it one of the most popular buildings on campus and useful spaces for academic help and success.

Among the many study spots are the library’s five themed alcoves: two on the first floor and three on the third. Tucked away on the edge of the third floor is the Women’s Studies Alcove. With its patterned red rug, three armchairs and a wooden desk stacked with old books and magazines, it looks similar to any of the others.

Throughout my past two years at Southwestern, this particular alcove has become one of my favorite spots to go for a cozy night of studying. However, it took me a while to realize that the Women’s Studies Alcove is more than just a quiet place to work.

After first learning about the Black feminist author and activist bell hooks and her connection to Southwestern in my Feminist Studies class with Dr. Robyn Adams, I recognized the small sign in the Alcove with bell hooks’ name next to a picture of her at a book signing here on campus in the early 2000s.

It quickly dawned on me that the rest of the Alcove was actually a space dedicated to honor various influential feminist thinkers as well as to tell the story of the brave women who built and shaped the Feminist Studies Program at Southwestern.

When I joined the Placing Memory Project in the summer of 2026, I decided to do my first entry for the project on the Women’s Studies Alcove to learn more about how it came to be and how it works as a memory place now.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Women’s Studies Alcove was founded in 1999 with support from the Susan Vaughan Foundation and was upgraded in 2005 after the retirement of Dr. Jan Dawson, a history professor at Southwestern and a key founder of the Women’s Studies Program, which by that point had been renamed the Feminist Studies Program.

Upon entering the Women’s Studies Alcove, you find a bookcase on the left filled with works that once belonged to faculty members who worked to include feminist scholarship and teaching praxis into the culture of Southwestern. The collection spans a wide range of genres and titles, from literary works such as Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and Anne Moody’s Coming of Age in Mississippi to curriculum guides for history teachers on how to incorporate women’s experiences into history classes.

Additionally, two displays on top of the bookcase introduce the development of women’s history as its own interdisciplinary academic field of study and identify significant chronological events in women’s history specifically at Southwestern.

On the opposite wall, there is a pile of old historical materials stacked on the desk that further represent the experience of women from the university’s past, including an exhibition catalog for the library’s Jessie Daniel Ames Collection and a catalog from the Ladies’ Annex from the academic year 1896-97.

Together, these books, documents and artifacts transform the Alcove from simply being another study spot to a small, publicly-accessible archive devoted to remembering the experience of women at Southwestern, especially the people and ideas at the heart of the Feminist Studies Program and other related classes at Southwestern.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Despite the care that went into creating this space a generation ago, the Alcove today may feel different than what the founders originally imagined.

Many of the books show signs of age and are missing pages, while the informational displays about women at Southwestern are stained, faded, and in need of replacement. Moreover, during my time here, I have rarely seen students stop to look at the displays or browse the collection. Instead, the space more often serves as a quiet escape from the busier parts of the library, the perfect spot to finish a paper or cram for an important exam.

This is further demonstrated inside the wooden desk, where layers of student graffiti form a very different archive. References to opinions about professors, rivalries among Greek organizations, and several inside jokes represent campus life not from the perspective of the founders of the Feminist Studies Program or the designers of the Alcove itself, but by generations of students who have occupied the space in their own ways and used it to communicate to other students.

Indeed, there is a collection of documents in the SU archives that suggest that this practice of students leaving messages to each other in the Women’s Studies Alcove started just a few years after the Alcove was established, in 2003-2004, when students wrote graffiti on scrap paper they found in the drawer.

The file for this in the University Archives does not provide any context for these documents, but their content suggests that long before students began writing graffiti on the desk drawer itself, they wrote graffiti on available resources in the Alcove.

While these messages from 2003-2004, with their references to gender and sexuality and references to bell hooks, seem to recognize and engage the specific theme of the Alcove more than the more recent graffiti inside the desk, these communications seem very different in form and content from the more institutional voice and purpose of the displays in the Alcove.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflecting on the complex interplay of different memory practices evident in the Alcove today points me to a question: do these various student markings represent a challenge to the Alcove’s intended purpose, or are they evidence of how students have made the space their own in ways that might actually reinforce the Alcove's intended purpose in suprising ways?

A similar tension appears on the walls. Three portraits of bell hooks hang on the right side of the alcove, alongside a small piece of paper attached to the wall stating her name and position as a Brown Visiting Scholar at the school.

On the top back wall, there are six more portraits of influential feminist thinkers. However, their identities are easy to overlook; the single label stating their names does not clearly indicate which name belongs to each portrait and is not even obviously connected to the portraits given its location on the wall far below them.

Additionally, the picture of Toni Morrison is missing entirely, with the rest of the images being faded from years of exposure to sun damage from the facing window. Lastly, a single portrait of Jessie Daniel Ames rests on the middle of the back wall, yet the portrait lacks any label.

The condition of these displays raises similar questions about how the Alcove serves as a place of memory today. How does a community remember people it has decided to honor? What responsibility do we have in relation to these memory places? Is preserving their images enough, or do we have to actively engage with and upkeep the display as we pass through the space each day?

When I first began studying in the Alcove as a naive first-year, I saw it only as a comfortable corner of the library. Now, after spending hours researching the history of the Feminist Studies in Distinctive Collections in between repeated visits to the Women’s Studies Alcove, I find myself looking at the room differently.

The books, displays and artifacts reveal stories that some students may never notice. However, that is what makes the Alcove such an interesting site to me. It doesn’t need to be viewed as a museum frozen in time and separated from everyday life. Instead, it is a living campus space that has been continuously shaped by the students who use it for multiple purposes, creating new memories in a place dedicated to preserving older ones.

For more (including 12 images) view the original article

In early November, 2025, people started noticing that one of the Story Tree’s main limbs had broken off and fallen to the ground.

One of those people was Josh Long, Professor of Environmental Studies, who emailed a group of faculty and staff known to care for the Story Tree, including me both as an alum and as Director of the Placing Memory Project, wondering what if anything could be done to diagnose the problem and prevent further damage to the tree.

A few days later, Dr. Long shared information he received from Dr. Stephanie Adams, the Statewide Arborist for AgriLife Extension at Texas A&M. Dr. Adams who had looked at the tree on Google Map satellite images and provided the provisional diagnosis that the growths on the tree appeared to be from a disease called crown gall.

Crown gall is caused by the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which produces woody blister-like growths called conks on affected trees, eventually weakening and killing them. Gary Pastushok, Williamson County, AgriLife Extension Horticulture Agent, later confirmed this diagnosis with an on-site inspection, and wrote an article about it that was published in the Williamson County Sun.

Meanwhile, while we all were absorbing that bad news, Dr. Long also asked people on the email thread if there was any way to collect the wood from the fallen limb and use it for art projects or memorabilia in the form of cross-section pieces called “tree cookies.”

Everyone involved loved the idea, and asked Dinah Ritchie in MarComm and Marie Muhvic in University Relations to look into the possibility of engaging fans of the Story Tree in a fundraising campaign that would literally allow people to keep a piece of the tree for themselves while working to preserve the tree.

That’s when Gary Pastushok confirmed that there was another way to create a placeable memory of the Story Tree: by propagating seedlings from the tree as well, creating little clones of the tree, "Baby Story Trees."

As of May 2026, plans are underway to use Sustainability S.A.F.E. funding to initially defray the costs of producing “tree cookies” and “Baby Story Trees” from the fallen limb to raise additional funds to continue to preserve the tree and its legacy long-term.

For more (including 7 images) view the original article

Among the many student publications produced on Southwestern’s campus over the years, one of the most unique and significant is La Voz: La Revisita de Literatura Latina.

La Voz existed for four academic years, 1997 to 2000. When Marisela Treviño Orta ‘99 founded the publication, she put her soul into creating a literary space for Latine students on campus, and succeeded in her time. Today, her work to create this important literary counterspace is not remembered on campus, and this entry seeks to change that.

Today, Marisela Treviño Orta is a successful playwright, someone who has spent her life giving voice to Latine stories. After graduating from Southwestern with a BA in International Studies with a focus in Latin American history in 1999, Marisela went on to receive a Masters in Creative Writing from the University of San Francisco and another Masters in Playwriting from the Iowa Playwrights Workshop.

Marisela and I met to talk about the history of La Voz recently, creating a moment for her to reflect on the publication and her time here at Southwestern.

Marisela says it was her Latin American history professor Dr. Daniel Castro who inspired her to found La Voz. Marisela’s sophomore year as a student was Dr. Castro’s first year teaching at Southwestern, and he shared with her his curiosity about the lack of a specifically Latino publication on campus.

“It felt like a suggestion, the way he was talking about it,” Marisela said, “almost as though he was laying down a mantle for someone to pick up.” Marisela had a strong background in literature and was a poet, so she did just that: she picked up the mantle and created La Voz.

The creation of the literary journal was heavily supported by Latinos Unidos, and the majority of contributors to the journal participated in the student organization. Marisela recalls putting a call out for entries most likely through Latinos Unidos.

There was no specific target audience or targeted set of contributors. Rather, Marisela aimed to create a platform for people to be able to put their thoughts out into the universe: “We don’t know what we’re thinking unless we articulate what’s in our heads,” she said. The purpose of sharing it through La Voz “was to feel seen and to feel heard.”

This was the late 1990s, in the early days of the internet and desktop publishing. Submissions came to Marisela either through email or as printed copies through campus mail, and she compiled the journal together herself in her free time working in the Academic Accommodations office, using their copy of PageMaker. There was no official meeting time or space, hence why she considers it a “one woman operation.”

Each time La Voz was published, seeing the journal circulate stood as a reminder to Marisela that “we” (Latine students) were on campus. The hope was to write something that would resonate with others, to provide comfort and recognition to the student body.

Southwestern’s Distinctive Collections & Archives has hard copies of all four editions of La Voz archived. Looking back at them today, you get a really strong sense of what it would have been to be a Latine student at Southwestern in the 1990s.

Many of the pieces published in La Voz revolve around Latine identity and the challenges of being a bicultural Latine student on a predominantly white campus, an important theme that Marisela believes was not properly addressed in the 1990s at Southwestern, when inclusion essentially meant assimilation.

The entries written by Marisela provide us a window into the experience she had along with what were then only a handful of Latine students. For example, in a piece titled “What do you mean I gotta change?” from the 1998 edition of La Voz, Marisela directly challenges the assumptions of many Anglo students at the time. She states: “I gotta change? / I have to be more like you / and less like me / you want me more like you / go on and say it / more like white.” The force of white, Anglo culture tries to indoctrinate anything that identifies as ‘other.’ Such a determined argument would not, and can not, stand: “I refuse to sacrifice myself / for I cannot live without this part of me anymore / than I could live without la sangre en mis venas.”

In our interview, Marisela said that her experience as a Latina student on campus wasn’t negative but rather somewhat of a shock: “It felt like all the Latine students could sit at one cafeteria table…maybe two. It was a very small population.” When taking classes outside of her major, she noted being the only minority student in such settings.

In reaction to this, Marisela stated that “you have to decide who you are” and to do it “very big.” College is a time of discovery, a time of learning about the person you are and the person you’re becoming. “That’s part of the story with the establishment of the journal,” she said. It was about “letting people feel seen and having a space to articulate what they're feeling and thinking about.” As Marisela states in the provided entry: “I will not die.”

One of Marisela’s works from the 1997 edition titled “Fighting with Numbers” really made me think about both the similarities and differences between Marisela’s time at Southwestern and my own.

This piece revolves around a question Marisela was often asked by Anglo students at Southwestern: “Why do Hispanics get all of the scholarships?” In response, Marisela found the statistics to prove why such a question is irrational. Later in the piece, she describes a protest she attended in support of Affirmative Action right on Congress Avenue in Austin, she noted that there was barely any media coverage on it. Over 600 people were in attendance, but the news refused to perceive it as relevant. She makes a statement in the piece that I found important for discussion: “In a state that will mostly be Latinos by 2025, newspapers are blatantly ignoring their customers.”

Finding the year 2025 marked in the entry majorly stood out to me writing this entry in 2025, especially given Southwestern’s recent designation as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and the current state of cultural politics around Latin American immigration and the conservative backlash against DEI.

When I pointed out her prediction regarding the year 2025, Marisela was surprised about this coincidence, and we had a lively discussion about it.

Marisela said that when La Voz was published, there were only a few people like her demanding space for Latine voices at Southwestern. She said that even the term ‘Latino’ was very new in the 90s, quickly becoming a new umbrella term. Then, it was a push against ‘Hispanic,’ which was a term automatically given by Anglos, whereas ‘Latino/a’ was chosen for themselves.

Looking at it now, in 2025, it is widely discussed that the terms ‘Latino’ and ‘Latina’ still do not encompass the community as a whole, and tend to erase certain aspects of identities. Marisela told me that she imagines “we’ll come up with more terms,” but also that it will always matter who is generating the terms.

Bringing up the philosopher Antonio Gramsci, she discussed his philosophy regarding cultural hegemony. Societies with multiple cultures in them have one mainstream culture that “suppresses, oppresses, and marginalizes other smaller groups,” Marisela reflected. Even as a young woman, Marisela believed that “eventually things are gonna change, that’s what America’s makeup looks like, and it’s gonna be different!”

She also recalls being in the computer lab writing a paper with cultural hegemony in mind, thinking “the people in power…when they start to feel like they’re losing it, they’re gonna feel like they’re backed into a corner and anytime anyone is backed into a corner, like wild animals for example, they get very violent.”

Marisela says the current attack on the Latine community is frightening, but Marisela has hope because, while power never gives up, neither do the people. She believes that fighting for community right now is dire and necessary. It has succeeded in other realms, such as the LGBTQ+ community, which is now more mainstream and not ostracized.

One important way to imagine a different future is to observe the ways it’s been fought for in the past. La Voz is a prime example of this. While a small publication on a small campus, it had an impact then, and could continue to do so for a new generation of students after its rediscovery. La Voz, a passion project of Marisela's, came and went with her years at Southwestern. So, why don’t we talk about it, why do we not know about it, and how can we bring awareness back to this progressive publication?

The mantle of La Voz has the opportunity to be picked up again, Marisela confirmed. We live differently now, so it should be able to serve the purposes of the 21st century students. Through advocacy and awareness, the community of future generations of students can appreciate La Voz

and use it as inspiration. It’s time to bring the voice back to the people, to minorities, to the future–by responding to the voices for change from the past.

For more (including 5 images) view the original article

For centuries, physical activity for women was framed as recreational rather than competitive. It focused more on health and maintaining image rather than athleticism or competition. The idea of women participating in organized sports, especially at the varsity level, was seen as inappropriate or even harmful.

But by the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, that idea began to change. Across the country, women began to form athletic clubs, challenging the restrictive norms put upon them and promoting the idea that women belonged in competitive sport.

On Southwestern University’s campus, this shift was evident. As early as 1903, there are records of club teams in tennis, basketball, and golf, all led by women. These student-driven efforts signaled a desire to engage seriously with athletics, but institutional support did not follow.

While men’s sports received funding, structure, and recognition, women’s teams remained unofficial and unrecognized for decades. It was not until Title IX passed in 1972, mandating gender equity in educational programs, including athletics, that Southwestern began to officially add women’s varsity teams.

From that point forward, a pattern emerged. Whenever Southwestern added a women’s team, it was because they had to because of external pressures, not because they chose to provide access to their students.

As a result, women’s athletics at Southwestern has lagged behind--not because of a lack of interest or ability from its female students, but from a lack of institutional will rooted in a heterosexist commitment to a kind of separate and unequal idea about educating men and women.

This pattern is not confined to Southwestern, as there are gender equity issues throughout higher education and especially college sports, but this entry is about how it has played out specifically here at Southwestern.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I have shown in other Placing Memory entries, women have actively sought and created opportunities to compete in organized sports since the early days of the University, but University leaders have not always been supportive.

In 1961, the Board of Trustees voted to make women’s physical activity “...sponsored as part of the Southwestern program of Physical Training for Women, and not to be or become a part of an inter-collegiate athletic program for women in manner, shape or form.”

This restricted women’s athletics to entirely intramurals. These intramurals were sponsored as part of the Women's Recreation Association--a gendered counterspace created by Southwestern female students that created continuity between the efforts of women in the Ladies Annex in the early 1900s to the women striving to be seen as equals to men up until the 1970s--but were mostly separated from the men.

A little over a decade later, in 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed by Congress and signed into law. This mandated universities to provide equal opportunities for women and men to access all opportunities provided by colleges and universities. While today Title IX is interpreted more broadly to include things like gendered violence as an access issue, the most prominent realm where Title IX was first applied in the 1970s was in equal opportunity for men and women to compete in varsity athletics.

Once the law was passed, Southwestern had no choice but to begin funding women’s varsity teams in order to be in compliance. In the fall of 1973, women’s tennis and volleyball were officially allocated a budget and allowed to play at the intercollegiate level.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the fall of 1975, a letter appeared in The Megaphone titled “A Case for Women’s Sports.” The author, Lee Ann Everette, was, along with Eva Mendiola, a prominent figure in getting the volleyball team set up as the first women's varsity athletics team at Southwestern. You will see her on the right end of the the middle row of the inaugural volleyball team photo from the 1975 yearbook included below.

In her 1975 opinion article in the Megaphone, Everette argued that women’s athletics was growing, that there was clear student interest--directly pushing back against men's claims that women’s sports were unnecessary or lacked value.

The article shows what the institutional timeline include below alone does not. We can clearly see that women were not passively waiting to be included. They were organizing, pushing, and publicly advocating for their right to compete. But it also shows that even after Title IX was passed, women’s athletics had to be justified in a way that men’s athletics never did.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In 1976, women’s basketball was brought back to campus and officially recognized as a varsity team, rounding out the initial waves of programs brought on by legal compliance.

After this, progress slowed once more until 1990, when Southwestern decided to pursue NCAA Division III membership. This move came with a new set of external requirements for athletic teams, which once again forced the university to expand women’s offerings.

That year, Southwestern created an Athletic Transition Steering Committee made up of faculty, staff and students, and the result was a large growth of women’s varsity programs. In 1992, women’s track & field, soccer, and golf were added. Cross country followed the next year in 1993. In 1998, women’s swimming was added. Finally, in 2008, the university added varsity softball.

The final dot on this timeline of women’s sports came in 2010, when Southwestern began planning to bring back its football program, which had been dormant since 1950. However, in order to stay in compliance with NCAA rules and Title IX, a new men’s team that large couldn’t be added without equivalent athletic opportunities for women. So, in 2013, the same year the SU football team was re-established, the university introduced the women’s lacrosse team, marking the newest addition to the women’s athletic program.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This timeline makes one thing quite clear. None of these women’s varsity programs were introduced as part of a long-term strategic investment in women’s athletics or in response to clear student demand. They were rather added to satisfy Title IX or NCAA rules.

Women’s athletics at Southwestern has rarely been the result of proactive support from the University. Instead, it has unfolded in response to external pressure, whether that be federal mandates or the administrative agendas of the NCAA.

Even when there was clear evidence of student interest and large participation in intramural sports and club teams by women–such as with women playing for co-ed lacrosse and soccer student organizations in the 1980s, and competing in women’s swimming & diving club in 1995-1996–the University delayed formal recognition and equitable budgetary support of female athletic teams until it became unavoidable.

Despite the lack of consistent institutional support, women at Southwestern have continued to show up, compete, and advocate for their right to belong in the athletic sphere. While the University’s delayed and reactive response are frustrating, this history is equally a testament to the determination and resilience of its female students.

The turnout and support that some of our women’s teams receive now is the product of a long, uphill fight for visibility and respect. Women have always had to fight for their place in sports, and in many ways, they still do. The work of fighting for equity is still ongoing, and remembering this history of women's athletics at Southwestern is essential to recognize the patterns that still shape our present.

For more (including 9 images) view the original article

The story of Larry Haynes ‘72 at Southwestern University is a testament to personal courage, academic and athletic excellence, and determination. His journey from a childhood of modest means to becoming a respected student leader, athlete, and Trustee at Southwestern reflects a deep connection to the University and an enduring legacy.

Born into a modest household in Bellmead, Texas, Larry Haynes' early life was shaped by the values instilled by his grandmother. Despite economic hardships, including a lack of running water in his home until his teenage years, Larry learned the virtues of resilience and resourcefulness. His grandmother's influence would become a cornerstone of his character, one that would guide him through significant life transitions.

In 1965, Larry made a bold decision that would forever connect his irrepressible spirit at Southwestern: he moved from an all-black segregated school to the newly integrated La Vega High School in Waco, Texas. This decision, driven by his passion for baseball, placed him at the forefront of desegregation efforts in education in Texas in the 1960s. Larry recalls, "I was the only person of color on the basketball team and baseball team.” In that situation, he said, “it all comes down to the one-on-one" relationships. His ability to navigate these new social dynamics with positivity set the stage for his future endeavors.

Larry's arrival at Southwestern University in the fall of 1968 marked another pivotal chapter not only in Larry’s life, but in the University’s history. As one of the first few African-American students on campus, he entered during a period of profound social change. Larry's previous experiences with being one of the few Black students at a mostly white school in Waco had equipped him with a unique perspective and resilience.

Larry Haynes' tenure at Southwestern University was characterized by a series of significant achievements and deep involvement in campus life. As the first Black member of the Student Judiciary and a proactive member of the Ruter House Council, he laid new groundwork for inclusion and representation within the University's governance structures. His tenacious spirit was further exemplified as he became the first Black athlete at Southwestern, breaking barriers as the varsity baseball team's center-fielder and earning the distinction of being one of the first recipients of the newly instituted sports awards for his outstanding performance on the field.

Reflecting on his transition between high school and college, Larry noted, "I had already been through a lot... I decided to move from an all-black school to an all-white school... because I wanted to play baseball." His determination to pursue his passion for baseball, despite the racial barriers, set the stage for his collegiate direction.

On the field, Larry quickly established himself as a standout athlete. By 1969, he was recognized as one of the top "Pirate Batsmen," excelling as the team's center-fielder. His athletic talent earned him a place on the Big State All-Conference team as a freshman, a groundbreaking achievement. His athletic accomplishments were frequently highlighted in the Megaphone, with numerous mentions celebrating his achievements.

Off the field, Larry's leadership qualities shone brightly. He became the first Black president of Blue Key, a scholarly and honorary organization that recognized college students for all-around excellence, and served as a Resident Assistant, fostering a sense of community and support among his peers.

Larry's commitment to academic and extracurricular excellence was evident also in his membership in Alpha Chi, the “S” Association for student-athletes. His involvement with B.O.S.S., Mask & Wig, and the President's Advisory Committee further showcased his diverse interests and his dedication to enhancing student life.

Larry's academic excellence was recognized through his induction into Pi Gamma Mu and his presence on the University Distinction List with Honors. His choice to major in Accounting & Economics not only reflected his personal interests but also his foresight into the skills that would propel him in his future career.

Despite the era's social constraints, Larry found a way to engage in community through the Independents Association, navigating around the exclusion from fraternities or sororities that was the norm for Black students at the time. His involvement in intramural sports beyond baseball underscored his love for competition and teamwork, qualities that he carried into his professional life.

After graduating with Honors in 1972 and building a successful career as a tax consultant, Larry's relationship with Southwestern did not fade. Beginning in 1997, he served as a member of the Board of Trustees. Alongside his wife Cheryl Hughes Haynes, also an esteemed alumnus of the class of 1973, he remained a dedicated alumnus, participating in alumni events and contributing to the University's growth.

Despite their significant contributions, the couple's presence is not visibly celebrated on campus, highlighting an area for growth in celebrating and commemorating the university's diverse alumni and people of impact. Larry Haynes' narrative at Southwestern University is not merely a personal success story; it is a chapter in the institution's ongoing journey toward inclusivity and diversity. Commemoration of his experiences, marked by firsts and foundations laid for those who followed, would inspire current students and serve as a potent reminder of the importance of recognizing and honoring the full spectrum of the university's history and its forerunners.

For more (including 5 images) view the original article