Talk:Elizabeth L. Cless

[Untitled]

The original writer gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Special Collections librarians at The Claremont Colleges Library in using their extensive files of materials on Elizabeth Cless and on The Claremont Colleges' Center for Continuing Education (CCE), and for the hospitality of my visit there. Without the carefully-preserved newspaper clippings, press releases, and other materials of The Claremont Colleges Library Special Collections team, this biography could not have been written.

The original writer also wants to acknowledge the access granted me to the Addison Kermath Archive of The PLATO Society of Los Angeles, created by its late Historian, which preserves materials dating to the earliest days of that lifelong learning organization.LM6407 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

POV

this seems written to praise the subject, not give a neutral desciption of her life and achievements. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate many of the earlier edits and will be improving the article based on them very soon. With regard to the above comment, perhaps you can be more specific, particularly after my turn at revising. Please check back in a few days. My changes will be explained here; specifically, a detailed response to back up my claim for the "first" assertion, will be forthcoming.LM6407 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Third sources confirm that Cless's "Minnesota Plan" was "first"

The Opitz and Love references qualify as "third sources."

Opitz's publication, dated 1999--seven years after Cless's death--is a historical overview of the evolution of three successive women's programs at the University of Minnesota which started with Cless's program. It is a third source because it references multiple sources which themselves refer to Cless's program:

  "This history is based on Vera M. Schletzer, et al. A Five Year Report 1960-1965 of the Minnesota Plan for the Continuing Education of Women (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1967); Janet D. Spector, "The Minnesota Plan II: A Project to Improve the University Environment for Women Faculty, Administrators, and Academic Professional Staff," Women's Studies Quarterly, 1-2 (1990): 189-206; oral interviews conducted by Clarke A. Chambers, on file at University of Minnesota Archives; oral interviews conducted by Donald L. Opitz, on file at the Minnesota Women's Center, manuscript collection of the Minnesota Women's Center, University of Minnesota Archives; and office files at the Minnesota Women's Center. The cover photo is from Schletzer, et al. A Five Year Report."

Love's book is already encyclopedic--a collection of over 400 individual edited capsule biographies spanning a 12-year period. It is included in the WikiProject "Women in Red" as a source of redlinks for new article originators such as me.

What those third sources say

Opitz:

    "Independently, Cless, assistant to the dean in the General Extension Division...approached the problem with curricular solutions.  During the 1958-59 academic year, she met informally with "star-studded" faculty...concerned with the necessity for renewed adult intellectual flexibility...With the help of "a gaggle of deans," they launched their team effort, the "Minnesota Plan for the Continuing Education of Women."...In June of 1960, the Carnegie Corporation granted the University of Minnesota $110,000 to fund the program's first three years...[University President] Morrill appointed an administrative advisory committee of five deans...[who] named Cless and Senders as co-directors...These steps launched the nation's first continuing education program for women of such magnitude and breadth in history." [emphasis added]

Love:

    "...In 1959 - 1960...an experimental seminar for educated women...was the successful precursor to the Minnesota Plan for the Continuing Education of Women.  That plan, funded by a generous three-year grant from the Carnegie Corporation (and widely copied in the U.S. and abroad)..."[emphasis added]  

If a plan is "widely copied", as Love writes, is it not being copied from the first?

I respectfully request that "first" be allowed and that the POV tag be removed. I am ready to add and revise citations accordingly.LM6407 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I have placed citations to the Opitz and Love references immediately following the occurrences of "first" in the article. The above discussion explains why each of those references are third sources that validate the "Minnesota Plan" as "the first major continuing education program specifically for women in the history of the United States," as the article says.LM6407 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate the detail you've provided, for it lets me see the context. But the Opitz reference doesn't justify "first" --It says "the nation's first continuing education program for women of such magnitude and breadth in history. not the first program, but the first program so extensive. Neither does the Love reference. There could be any number of plans being tried at various places. one or more of them might be widely copied, . The references doesn't even say it was the first to be widely copied or that it was the most influential, just that it was influential. Now, you may think this nit-picking. But it's exactly claims to first that need to be carefully examined, because once made, they tend to be repeated. Many do not really hold up. (I am far from the only editor here who questions all undocumented "firsts"s, I learned to do so from others)

There is, btw, a problem, with using "a collection of over 400 individual edited capsule biographies " -- they tend to be short and non-critical. As you say, it's purpose for WiR is as a source of redlinks, not a source of detail. It illustrates the problem is usinggeneral descriptive terms. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Small edits

I have put in a few words to restore points that were lost in previous edits. They are not simple reverts.

1. After edits, the beginning of "The Minnesota Plan" was left reading, "Cless's career joined the General Extension Division...", which does not make sense. It now reads, "Turning from art to education, Cless joined the General Extension Division." I think this is a more useful and less jazzy transition than my original one.

I think it is worthwhile to remind the reader that Cless had been deeply into fine art but was leaving that behind for education--a transition much like what the program she was about to create would help other women make successfully.

Reminders for the reader of this sort are rhetoric, not information. We provide the information. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

2. My long and somewhat redundant quotation from Opitz was deleted in a previous edit. I agree that it was too long, but it was there to give the reader some idea of the purpose of the program Cless was beginning. I added the phrase,"...and the program's purpose the full, productive use of educated women" to restore that information.

3. My too-conversational introduction in the UCLA section was entirely deleted in a previous edit. However, that deleted the description of the type of program that Dean Freedman wanted to set up, which was not continuing education for women. I added the words, "for a learning-in-retirement program" to restore that important fact.LM6407 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think adding that phrase was a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

the sort of tone problem is have in mind is "Leonard Freedman, Dean of UCLA Extension and Continuing Education, asked Cless in early 1979 if she would be interested in doing a feasibility study for a learning-in-retirement program, writing a clean-slate proposal, and perhaps helping to get the program going. ] Starting in April, 1979, for several years, she did all of that." This is by encyclopedic standards a little diffuse--it may matter that she was asked, rather than that she applied for a position, but it does not matter who it was that asked her. "she did all that" is rhetoric, not information.

Similarly, "Success stories abounded. Cless told a reporter in 1969, "I never discourage anybody any more."[12]" Again, the first sentence is rhetoric. The second is unclear, tho it perhaps was originally intended as a summary of the many success stories. .

"Cless introduced two interdisciplinary liberal arts seminars at CCE that were designed to acquaint participants with new ideas spanning a broad range of fields." Introducing students to" new ideas' is what all education programs are about. (perhaps you mean "recent developments"?) "Spanning a broad range of fields" is the essential characteristic of interdisciplinary programs.

The quote from the alumni award is unnecessary--we usually remove award citations . That she received the award shows her importance. (actually, Alumni awardsusually show this only weakly, but that it was from Radcliffe in this period is significant, as the work she did is what Radcliffe's President Mary Bunting was known for. What the award is for has already been described in the article.

I'm citing these as typical of what i mean by over-personal tone, not as the only examples of it. . I suspect that you think I'm being too picky about details. I wouldn't have bothered to comment if it had been one or two. But I think there was enough to affect the overall tone. The detail in my explanations is because Im trying to explain exactly.

On a positive note, I had a problem with "Rusty Ladies"--but I see from Google books there are specific references that she used the term in connection with the Minnesota program. So it can & should be cited.

I hope all of this helps. It is not neceesary that you follow my suggestions, and I do not need to approvechanges. But I have the right to edit it just as you do, and I'll remove the tag is I think the tone has changed significantly, without implying or requiring that I agree with every detailed decision. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Major edit notes

I have removed the absolute "first" claim, discussed above, from this article. To prove it would require a scholarly investigation which is beyond my resources, since a negative must be proved--that there was no small experiment anywhere before 1960 in something that approximates continuing education for women.

Cless herself was not absolute about the Minnesota Plan's primacy:

"Three very different academic institutions were ready to take Esther Lloyd-Jones's suggestion that, instead of trying to encourage women to defer marriage until after college, higher education should try to adapt itself to meet the changed needs of women. These three institutions were not the only ones involved, but for a number of reasons the programs they established became the most visible and provided the impetus for others to follow their lead. The University of Minnesota established the Minnesota Plan for the Continuing Education of Women in 1960. Radcliffe College opened the Radcliffe Institute for Independent Study in 1961. Sarah Lawrence College initiated its Center for Continuing Education in 1962." [Emphasis added.]

I hope that the revisions I have made will suffice to remove the tags from this article.LM6407 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References