WILLIAM BARLOW AND DAVID 0. POWELL
Homeopathy and Sexual Equality:
The Controversy Over Coeducation
at Cincinnati's Pulte Medical
College, 1873-1879
The number of women physicians in the
United States increased
dramatically during the late nineteenth
century. From a mere 200
or less in 1860, their ranks swelled to
over 7,000 by 1900.1 In Ohio,
the number of female doctors grew from
42 to 451 in the last three
decades of the century.2 Although reliable
statistics are not avail-
able, it has been estimated that a
majority of these women in Ohio
and elsewhere were trained in schools
sponsored by groups of physi-
cians who dissented from orthodox
medical therapy and were
branded as irregular sects by the
American Medical Association.3
Homeopathy, a major dissenting sect
which advocated extremely
small doses of medication, provided much
of this early educational
opportunity.4 In Ohio, for
example, the second woman to receive an
William Barlow is Professor of History
at Seton Hall University and David O.
Powell is Professor of History at C.W.
Post Center, Long Island University. The
authors wish to acknowledge the support
of the American Philosophical Society,
Penrose Fund, Grant Number 8438. A
shortened version of the paper was read at a
joint meeting of the Ohio Medical
Association and the Ohio Academy of Medical
History, Columbus, Ohio, May 15, 1979.
1. Mary Roth Walsh, "Doctors
Wanted: No Women Need Apply": Sexual Barriers in
the Medical Profession, 1835-1975 (New Haven, 1977), 186.
2. Frederick C. Waite, "Ohio
Physicians in the Nineteenth Century, A Statistical
Study," The Ohio State Medical
Journal, XL (August, 1950), 791-92.
3. Carol Lopate, Women in Medicine (Baltimore,
1968), 6.
4. Homeopathy was one of several medical
sects which emerged in the first half of
the nineteenth century and were
considered irregular because of their rejection of the
heroic therapy then practiced by most
orthodox physicians. Heroic medicine consisted
of extensive bleeding, blistering, and
sweating, together with drastic purging and
puking induced by massive doses of
calomel and other toxic substances. In contrast,
homeopathy was based on the law of
infinitesimals-the smaller the dose the more
effective the result-and provided
welcome relief to many patients formerly subjected
to the heroic regimen. Becoming popular
and somewhat fashionable in the middle
102 OHIO HISTORY
M.D. degree, Helen Cook, was graduated
from Cleveland
Homeopathic College in 1852. From that
date until 1914, 260
women earned homeopathic degrees in
Cleveland compared to only
64 regulars. Nationally, by 1880 nine of
the eleven homeopathic
schools admitted women.5
Explanations of the apparent absence of
sexual barriers in
homeopathy range from the noble to the
crass. They vary from the
sect's genuine dedication to a variety
of nineteenth-century reforms
including women's rights, through a
desire to spread its creed by
any means, including using women, to a
crude entrepreneurial
attempt to make money by expanding
enrollments in its educational
institutions.6 Whatever the
reason, historians have assumed that in
contrast to orthodox centers of medical
education, homeopathic col-
leges eagerly welcomed women. This
assumption has never been
examined in detail. Moreover, since
homeopathic medical schools
either disappeared or converted to
regular therapeutics in the twen-
tieth century, few materials remain for
a thorough and systematic
investigation. Fortunately, the records
of Pulte Medical College of
Cincinnati are extant and provide the
basis of this study.7
If Pulte was typical of her sister
colleges, the belief that
homeopathic schools ardently espoused
sexual equality must be
reexamined. From its founding in 1872
until 1879, coeducation was
hotly debated and proved so devisive
that it almost destroyed the
school. The wrangling reached a fever
pitch in 1878 when it was
taken up by the press and aptly
headlined "Homeopathic War."
Before the issue was resolved, it
produced mass resignations from
the Board of Trustees and faculty,
vitriolic personal attacks on pro-
fessors, and law suits charging libel
and slander.8
The dispute over female students at
Pulte did not occur in a
vacuum. It coincided with a national
debate concerning coeducation
prompted by the well-publicized views of
Dr. Edward H. Clarke, a
and late nineteenth century, homeopathy
established its own medical societies and
schools and was a major source of
competition to the regular profession. After the rise
of scientific medicine, homeopathy and
its medical institutions largely died out in the
early twentieth century. See Martin
Kaufman, Homeopathy in America: The Rise
and Fall of a Medical Heresy (Baltimore, 1971).
5. Frederick C. Waite, Western
Reserve University Centennial History of the School
of Medicine (Cleveland, 1946), 328, 330.
6. John B. Blake, "Women and
Medicine in Ante-Bellum America," Bulletin of the
History of Medicine, XXXIX (Spring, 1965), 99-123; Waite, "Ohio
Physicians," 792;
John Duffy, The Healers: The Rise of
the Medical Establishment (New York, 1976),
271.
7. Pulte Medical College Papers,
Cincinnati Historical Society, Cincinnati, Ohio.
8. Cincinnati Daily Times, June
13, 1878.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 103
Harvard Medical School professor. Dr.
Clarke argued that although
capable women had a right to study
medicine, they must be segre-
gated from male students and would be
hampered professionally by
their periodicity. His Sex in
Education; or, A Fair Chance for the
Girls, published in 1873, extended his argument against mixed
clas-
ses to include all female education
beyond puberty. Concentrated
study would divert "force to the
brain" which was necessary in the
"manufacture of bl od,
muscle, and nerve, that is, in growth." The
result would be women with
"monstrous brains and puny bodies ...
weak digestion . . . and constipated
bowels."9 The feminist counter-
attack was immediate. Articles, books,
and investigations quickly
appeared which concentrated on proving
that menstruation did not
impair women's ability to study or
work.10 The champions of women,
however, did not deal specifically with
the question of medical
coeducation.
That issue was at the time, however, in
contention at a number of
academic institutions. The University of
Michigan and several
other schools opened their doors to
women medical students early in
the 1870s. In 1878, the same year that
the Cincinnati squabble
reached a climax, even Harvard
considered coeducation. Conceding
that there was "a legitimate demand
for, and an important place to
be filled by, well-educated women as
physicians," the professors
nevertheless voted against their
admission. It is significant that
what was given at Michigan and denied at
Harvard was equal but
separate education. At Michigan the only
course in which the sexes
were integrated was chemistry. At
Harvard the rejected plan pro-
vided for "complete
separation" in laboratories and most lectures."
At irregular institutions from 1869 to
1877, six homeopathic schools
opted for coeducation, although several
restricted women to segre-
gated classes. By 1878, only Pulte and
two other homeopathic col-
leges remained exclusvely male.12
9. Walsh, "Doctors Wanted,"
119-27; Edward H. Clarke, Sex in Education; or, a
Fair Chance for the Girls (Boston, 1873), 41.
10. Walsh, "Doctors
Wanted," 127-32; Julia W. Howe, ed., Sex and Education: A
Reply to Dr. E.H. Clarke's "Sex
in Education" (Boston, 1874).
11. Bertha Selmon, "Early
Development of Medical Opportunity for Women in the
United States," Medical Woman's
Journal, LIV (January, 1947), 25-28, 60; Thomas
F. Harrington, The Harvard Medical
School: A History, Narrative and Documentary,
1782-1905 (3 vols., New York, 1905), III, 1223-34.
12. William H. King, History of
Homeopathy and Its Institutions in America (4
vols., New York, 1905), II, 211-14,
380-95, 410, III, 106-07. For examples of equal but
separate instruction at homeopathic
schools, see University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, The Homeopathic Medical
School, Second Annual Announcement, 1876-77
104 OHIO HISTORY
At the center of the protracted
confrontation over women at Pulte
stood four prominent faculty members:
Drs. Thomas P. Wilson,
M.H. Slosson, Seth R. Beckwith, and John
D. Buck. They were all
among the founders of the school, were
graduates of Cleveland
Homeopathic College, and, with the
exception of Dr. Slosson, had
taught there before coming to
Cincinnati. Drs. Beckwith and Slos-
son emerged as opponents of coeducation,
with Drs. Buck and Wil-
son as proponents. Other faculty members
took less consistent or
conspicuous stands during the
controversy.13
Either by intent or neglect, Pulte's
original bylaws and announce-
ments left the status of women
undefined.14 Consequently, at "every
session of lectures a number" of
women applied for admittance "but
were turned away."15 Such
was the fate of Frances Janney of Col-
umbus, Ohio. In 1874 her preceptor wrote
"to Cincinnati to see if
they would admit me this fall."
Denied acceptance, she entered Bos-
ton University where she received her
M.D. degree in 1877. During
the spring of 1876, however, she studied
in Cincinnati at Dr. Wil-
son's Ophthalmalic Clinic which was
housed in the same building as
Pulte. After Dr. Wilson persuaded some
of Pulte's teachers to permit
her to attend their classes
unofficially, she proudly informed her
mother that she would "be the first
lady student to attend lectures at
Pulte College after all." But other
professors, she complained,
"Beckwith among the number, say
they will not lecture to ladies
...." They were "not true
gentlemen," she felt, "& want to say
things they ought not to, & do not
want the restraint of the presence
of ladies."16 Thus,
despite Frances Janney's attendance at a few
classes, Pulte's doors remained formally
closed to women.
On four occasions from 1873 to 1878,
coeducation was debated and
voted on by Pulte's faculty. In 1873,
spurning the idea of mixed
classes, "a Spring Term for women
only" was approved. A circular
advertising the course was issued, but
since "not a single woman
(Ann Arbor, 1876), 3, and Tenth
Annual Announcement of Hahnemann Medical
College, Chicago, Illinois, Session
of 1869-70 (Chicago, 1869), 8-9.
13. Cleave's Biographical Cyclopaedia
of Homeopathic Physicians and Surgeons
(Philadelphia, 1873), 53, 319-20; King, History
of Homeopathy, II, 221-23, III, 36-61,
IV, 384-85.
14. Articles of Incorporation of
By-Laws of the Pulte Medical College, Cincinnati,
Ohio (Cincinnati, 1881); First Annual Announcement of
Pulte Medical College . ..
Session of 1872-73 (Cincinnati, 1872).
15. Letter, John D. Buck, William Owens,
Thomas P. Wilson to Board of Trustees
of Pulte College, June 11, 1878, Pulte
Medical College Papers (hereafter cited as
Buck et al. to Board of Trustees).
16. Letters, Frances Janney to Rebecca
A.S. Janney, August 7, 1874, May 3, 4,
1876, Janney Family Papers, Ohio
Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 105 |
applied for admission," segregationist Dr. Beckwith concluded that women did not want to become physicians. Coeducationist Dr. Buck, however, exclaimed "Good for them," elated that women had repudi- ated sexual segregation in favor of full equality with men. Again in 1875 the question of admitting women was raised and "promptly |
106
OHIO HISTORY
voted down." Three years later on
February 5, 1878, Dr. Buck intro-
duced a resolution approving
matriculants "without distinction of
sex" which was passed, only to be
rescinded four days later. There-
upon, Drs. Buck and Wilson angrily
submitted their resignations to
the Board of Trustees and demanded an
"investigation of the lying
& bullying by which women were
excluded."17 When reconciliation
efforts failed, the trustees requested
that the two antagonistic fac-
tions present their ideas in writing in
order to provide a basis for
discussion and decision.18
The arguments for and against the
entrance of women to Pulte
were presented to the Board of Trustees
at a meeting on May 28,
1878.19 Speaking for a
majority of the faculty, Dr. Beckwith was
supported by Dr. Slosson and three other
professors. A longtime foe
of female physicians, Dr. Beckwith had
earlier fought unsuccessful-
ly to exclude them from local, state,
and national homeopathic orga-
nizations. By the 1870s, however, with
increasing numbers entering
the profession, he grudgingly admitted
that "no one denies her
right" and capability of
"practicing medicine." Even so, he doubted
if they could succeed as general
practitioners. "Nature" had adapted
women only for the "treatment of
disease peculiar to her own sex."
Furthermore, they must be trained in
"Colleges established for
them, or in entirely separate
departments" and only "for the very
limited sphere ... in which they can
reasonably hope to succeed"-
obstetrics, gynecology, and diseases of
children.20
But Pulte, Dr. Beckwith proclaimed, must
remain a male bastion.
It was "organized for the medical
education of men," and the "large
and intelligent" male student body
"almost to a man" opposed
female students. More importantly, mixed
classes would attract im-
moral women who would corrupt the "clinical instruction given to
male students." A separate
department for women was "utterly im-
practicable" at Pulte. Moreover,
lecturing to women separately on
surgery, anatomy, and obstetrics
"would be obviously improper and
embarrassing to all parties."
Adjunct female professors in these
sensitive chairs, Dr. Beckwith
continued, likewise would be un-
17. Letter, Seth R. Beckwith, M.H.
Slosson, C.C. Bronson, D.W. Hartshorn, W.H.
Hunt to Board of Trustees of Pulte
College, June 11, 1879, Pulte Medical College
Papers (hereafter cited as Beckwith et
al. to Board of Trustees).
18. Pulte College Board of Trustees
Minutes, 1872-1889 (hand-written copy), May
28, 1878, 72-74, Pulte Medical College
Papers (hereafter cited as Board of Trustees
Minutes).
19. Ibid.
20. Seth R. Beckwith, "Medical
Education of Women," Cincinnati Medical Ad-
vance, I (July, 1973), 304-06; Beckwith et al. to Board of
Trustees.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 107
acceptable "to the gentlemen
occupying them." In addition, even if
women were admitted to Pulte, they could not fulfill
the graduation
requirement of clinical observation and
lectures because the Cincin-
nati Hospital barred them from its
teaching facilities. In short, Dr.
Beckwith concluded, female students
would destroy "the harmony
and increasing popularity, usefulness
and prosperity of the Col-
lege." There the opponents rested
their case.21
The arguments for coeducation were
contained in an eleven-page
printed brief signed by Drs. Buck and
Wilson and part-time profes-
sor Dr. William Owens. A wide-ranging
document, it criticized the
organization of the board, attributed
the school's unstable finances
to Dr. Beckwith's antifeminism, and
mustered evidence from home
and abroad supporting coeducational
classes. Charging that Dr.
Beckwith had manipulated the members of
the Board of Trustees to
his will, the brief demanded that he be
removed as its president. In
that position, he had alientated "a
great and growing portion of
influential and cultured society."
More specifically, he was guilty of
the "slanderous assertion, broadly
and loudly advocated that no
respectable women will attend a Medical
College with men, and
that the College which admits them is
but another name for a
Whore House," thus casting
"offensive and indecent asperities on
women and sister Colleges" which
accept them.22
The brief went on to link certain
financial "failures and short-
comings" to Dr. Beckwith's refusal
to sanction coeducation. Dr.
Joseph H. Pulte, after whom the school
was named, originally prom-
ised a handsome endowment but after
women were excluded
changed his mind, stating that "his
wife, as his apothecary, had
done as much to establish Homeopathy in
Cincinnati as he had, and
he did not propose to take
her money as well as his own, to endow a
college that refused to her sex equal
rights and opportunities ...."
In addition, Dr. Beckwith's "out
spoken and violent opposition" to
women "greatly reduced the number
of our students" and thus
"most seriously affected our
financial revenues."23
In a more positive vein, the brief
argued that coeducation was in
keeping with the "spirit of the
present age, the progress of time, and
the course of medical education."
Even in "conservative Europe the
barriers" to women had crumbled at
the Universities of Paris, Lon-
don, Upsala, and Zurich, along with
other prestigious schools in
21. Ibid.
22. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.
23. Ibid.; Cincinnati Daily
Times, June 13, 1878.
108 OHIO HISTORY
Italy, Russia, and Austria. On the
domestic scene, the recent May,
1878, Homeopathic Inter-Collegiate
Conference declared unani-
mously that "our" colleges
should be opened "to all . . . without
distinction of sex."24 While
attending that conference, Dr. Wilson
had solicited the candid evaluations of
coeducation from representa-
tives of the seven institutions where it
existed. Six replied in
lengthy letters which were included in
the brief. Eschewing all
theoretical speculations, the
respondents, some of whom were
formerly hostile to female students,
detailed the actual results of
mixed classes in their institutions and
thus provided a thoroughly
practical refutation of Drs. Beckwith's
and Clarke's tirades against
coeducation.25
Women, observed Dr. J.G. Gilchrist of
the University of Michigan
Homeopathic Medical College, were
intellectually "equal to the men
in exact knowledge . . . and class
standing." Dr. J.R. Sanders of
Cleveland Homeopathic College, on the
basis of"near twenty years"
experience, even felt that women
acquired "this knowledge with
greater rapidity" than men and held
"it with equal tenacity." Dur-
ing "the last year ... the best paper"
in Dr. Charles Adams' surgical
examination at Chicago Homeopathic
College "was from a women."
Women also possessed special healing
talents which "naturally en-
dowed" them for medicine, declared
Dr. A.C. Cowperthwait of the
Homeopathic Medical Department of the
University of Iowa. "For
the more delicate ministry of the
art," Dr. Sanders insisted, they
had "qualities prominent above
man."26
Although women were decorous creatures,
Dr. David Thayer of
Boston University had "no
trouble" instructing "both sexes together
on all subjects, even those of the
greatest delicacy." Dr. Adams had
"no more trouble with the cases in
my cliniques on account of their
presence than the gynecologist has with
his on the men's account."
Nothing had ever occurred in Dr. T.S.
Hoyne's lectures at Hahne-
mann Medical College of Chicago "to
offend even the most modest
woman in the land." Dr. Sanders
never had "any difficulty or embar-
rassment by reason of women's presence,
or ... any evidence of any
lady student suffering any offense, or
wound of delicacy, or tarnish
24. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.
25. Letters, David Thayer to Thomas P.
Wilson, February 26, 1878; J.C. Sanders to
Wilson, February 26, 1878; J.G.
Gilchrist to Wilson, February 25, 1878; T.S. Hoyne to
Wilson, February 25, 1878; Charles Adams
to Wilson, February 25, 1878; A.C. Cow-
perthwait to Wilson, February 26, 1878,
Pulte Medical College Papers.
26. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson,
Sanders to Wilson, Adams to Wilson, Cowper-
thwait to Wilson.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 109
of true womanly modesty." "If
this is possible in Obstetricy," he
emphasized, "it surely must be in
every other department of medical
teaching.27
The attendance of such superior moral
beings in classes with men
in fact "had a silently beneficial
effect on the sterner sex," reported
Dr. Gilchrist. Their presence at
Cleveland was a "perpetual chal-
lenge" to "boorishness and
vulgarity." The faculty there would nev-
er "forget the experience of
lawlessness, rudeness, unmannerly and
unmanly demeanor" of male students
at one session when women
were excluded. After women restrained
the animalistic male,
however, he exerted an "inevitable
challenge" to her "high endeavor
and rivalry of success." In short,
Dr. Thayer was convinced that
coeducation allowed a "healthy
emulation between the sexes which
contributes to the mutual advantage of
both."28
Finally, menstruation may account for
woman's "emotional na-
ture," wrote Dr. Gilchrist, but
rather than proving debilitating it
produced in female students an
"esprit de corps" which men lacked.
At the University of Michigan "in
not a single instance has a case of
break-down occurred among them, that
cannot be matched by
enough, yes, more than enough
cases among the men ... ." Women
were "equally enduring in the
strain incident to prolonged and
somewhat severe mental
application." "Dr. Clarke would find a
most overwhelming defeat of his system,
if he were here." Dr. Cow-
perthwait summarized the views of his
colleagues: "The day for
ladies to either starve or else be wash
and sewing ladies is past."29
Armed with these findings, the
petitioners requested not only the
admission of women but their full
equality as students, arguing that
"our College building is peculiarly
adapted to the wants of a mixed
class .. .." They indicated,
however, they would settle for less by
acknowledging "we have large
unoccupied rooms for separate clas-
ses when so desired." But for
their overall case, it could be "further
substantiated, if need be, by 'a cloud
of witnesses.' "30
Both factions of the faculty asked the
Board of Trustees for a
speedy resolution of the "vexing
question." Initially, by removing
Dr. Beckwith as its president and
forcing him and three other facul-
ty members to resign as trustees, the
board appeared ready to accept
27. Letters, Thayer to Wilson, Adams to
Wilson, Hoyne to Wilson, Sanders to
Wilson.
28. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson, Thayer
to Wilson, Sanders to Wilson.
29. Letters, Gilchrist to Wilson,
Cowperthwait to Wilson.
30. Buck et al. to Board of Trustees.
110 OHIO HISTORY
women. However, the resignation of eight
additional trustees left
the remaining twelve divided and
uncertain as to how to proceed.
Therefore, at a series of meetings in
May and June of 1978, the
board procrastinated.31
Deliberations were further complicated
when the imbroglio
erupted in the public press. On June 13,
the Cincinnati Times pub-
lished segments of the "serious
charges against Dr. Beckwith" made
by Drs. Buck and Wilson. The following
day the Times joined by the
Enquirer and Commercial featured Dr. Beckwith's
denouncements
of the "libelous and
slanderous" accusations. These exchanges and
other newspaper reports centered on the
possibility of financial
irregularities and added little to the
women's question. On June 15,
Dr. Beckwith instituted a $10,000 libel
suit against Drs. Buck, Wil-
son, and Owens.32
Under such emotional circumstances, the
board met on June 18.
Conflicting resolutions were presented.
One stated that it would be
"detrimental ... to admit
females." A substitute resolution asserted
that matriculants "be admitted . .
. without distinction of sex" but
with separate lectures on certain
"delicate" topics. Unable or un-
willing to support either position, the
board after much maneuver-
ing deferred a decision until March,
1879. While the substantive
question was sidestepped, procedural
votes suggest that the board
was evenly divided.33 A
trustee later confessed that they "were in
doubt as to the wisdom and
propriety" of which course to follow. As
"business men," they were
"generally unacquainted with the real
merits of such questions" and
"hesitated when disaster and ruin
were predicted."34
Having postponed a verdict on
coeducation until the following
year, the board next considered the
seething hostility among the
professors. As with the women's issue,
they followed an erratic and
contradictory course. On July 1, Dr.
Slosson, spokesman for the
Beckwith group, introduced a plan
removing Drs. Buck and Wilson
from the faculty and adding five new
professors. In response to this
opportunity to clear the air, the board
temporized and inexplicably
accepted Dr. Wilson's resignation but
refused Dr. Buck's.35 A Cincin-
nati paper interpreted these actions as
a "triumpth for Dr. Beckwith
31. Board of Trustees Minutes, May 28,
June 3, June 11, 1878, 72-77.
32. Cincinnati Daily Times, June
13, 14, 1878; Cincinnati Enquirer, June 14,
1878; Cincinnati Commercial, June
14, 16, 1878.
33. Board of Trustees Minutes, June 18,
1878, 78-80.
34. Cincinnati Commercial, March
3, 1881.
35. Board of Trustees Minutes, July 1,
1878, 81-83.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 111 |
|
and his party" and concluded that the "question of the admission of women . . . is now practically decided in the negative." Dr. Buck retorted that such an assessment was "rather premature" because the "whole matter" was still "in the hands of the trustees."36 Dr. Buck's prophecy proved partially accurate. Within a month and without explanation, Dr. Slosson resigned and Dr. Buck's allies Drs. Wilson and Owens were reappointed by the board. In addition, two of Dr. Beckwith's former supporters now joined the Buck faction to form a pro-women faculty majority. Disappointed at his sudden loss of power and peeved by the board's probing into his financial conduct, Dr. Beckwith indignantly resigned. Therefore, by the fall term of 1878 professors supporting coeducation appeared trium- phant, and a favorable ruling on women by the trustees seemed assured.37 Such, however, was not the case. The board proved as incapable of resolving the quandary in 1879 as in 1878. On March 17, they decided to postpone "indefinitely" the "subject of the admission of
36. Cincinnati Commercial, July 3, 5, 1878. 37. Board of Trustees Minutes, July 31, August 2, November 23, 1878, 83-87. A special announcement dated August 1, 1878, was issued to clarify the various changes in the faculty during the hectic months of June and July. Pulte Medical College ... Session of 1878-79 (Cincinnati, 1878). |
112 OHIO HISTORY
women."38 Frustrated by
this delaying tactic, the faculty took mat-
ters into its own hands and published
the annual announcement for
1879-80 which proclaimed that
"hereafter all properly qualified
matriculants, without distinction of
sex, will be admitted."39
Presented with this fait accompli, the
board met on July 22 "for
the purpose of considering the action of
the faculty relative to the
admission of Females" but again was
hopelessly divided and unable
to assert control. After several
unsuccessful attempts to censure the
faculty for "infringement of the
privileges and duties" of the trus-
tees, the board appointed a special
investigating committee. After
deliberating for a week, the committee
submitted two conflicting
reports - one harshly criticizing the
professors, demanding a facul-
ty reorganization, and recommending that
the annual announce-
ments be destroyed, and the other
upholding the faculty and assert-
ing that in the absence of bylaws to the
contrary the admission of
students was a prerogative of the
professors. The board divided
evenly on both reports, and as a result
neither was adopted.40 Thus,
women were admitted to Pulte by the
faculty without sanction of the
Board of Trustees. In this unusual and
perhaps unprecedented
fashion, the controversy was finally
resolved.
The victory for the supporters of women
was less than complete.
In order to gain the necessary faculty
support and the reluctant
acquiesence of the trustees, Drs. Buck
and Wilson had compromised
the principle for which they had so long
fought. Coeducation would
not mean total integration of all
classes at Pulte. While promising
"women advantages equal, in every
respect, to those enjoyed by
men," the new announcement added
vaguely that "instruction will
be given in some departments separately,
whenever desirable or
necessary."41 In actual
practice, the sexes would attend segregated
classes in anatomy, obstetrics, and
gynecology as well as some of the
clinics.42
In the fall of 1879 seven women were
enrolled at Pulte. Observing
that three were college graduates and
two public school teachers,
the Cincinnati Enquirer proclaimed
extravagantly that their qual-
38. Board of Trustees Minutes, March 17,
1879, 94-95.
39. Annual Announcement of Pulte
Medical College ... Session of 1879-80 (Cincin-
nati, 1879), 13-14.
40. Board of Trustees Minutes, July 22,
29, 1879, 95-108.
41. Annual Announcement of Pulte
Medical College ... Session of 1879-80 (Cincin-
nati, 1879), 17.
42. Annual Announcement of Pulte
Medical College ... Session of 1880-81 (Cincin-
nati, 1880), 13.
Homeopathy & Sexual Equality 113
ifications were better than "any
class of male students in any
medical college."43 The
following year, 1880-81, saw eight female
metriculants, three of whom received
M.D. degrees. Dr. Buck
announced with satisfaction: "The
joint medical education of men
and women ... is no longer an
experiment."44 By 1883-84 women
comprised 31 percent of the students and
19 percent of the
graduates.45 While women
reported that they were welcomed with
"courtesy and respect," the
faculty asserted that their presence had
improved "general deportment"
and that they had displayed a "high
degree of scholarship."46 As
evidence, in 1880 Miss Stella Hunt re-
ceived the "prize for the best
examination in physiology," thus cast-
ing doubt on a famous obstetrician's
comment that woman "has a
head almost too small for intellect but
just big enough to love."47
Although the controversy over the
admission of women to Pulte
was eventually settled in favor of
common sense and justice, the
evidence suggests that sexual barriers
at irregular medical institu-
tions could be much more rigid than
scholars have assumed. A
majority of the faculty and trustees at
a homeopathic college were as
reluctant to embrace sexual equality as
were their counterparts at
most orthodox schools. Pulte's Dr.
Beckwith was as adamant in his
antifeminist stance as was Harvard's Dr.
Clarke. Moreover, even
when coeducation was adopted, it
involved, as elsewhere, equal but
separate instruction. Before
generalizing about the medical educa-
tion of women in nineteenth-century
America, historians must re-
search more completely homeopathic and
other irregular medical
schools. In fact, a thorough
reexamination of medical coeducation
seems necessary.
43. Ibid., 18-21; Cincinnati Enquirer,
March 24, 1880.
44. Annual Announcement of Pulte
Medical College ... Session of 1881-82 (Cincin-
nati, 1881), 20-23; Cincinnati Commercial,
March 3, 1881.
45. Annual Announcement of Pulte
Medical College... Session of 1884-85 (Cincin-
nati, 1884), 18-21.
46. Cincinnati Enquirier, March
21, 1880.
47. Ibid, March 5, 1880; C.D.
Meigs, Lecture on Some of the Distinctive Character-
istics of the Female, Delivered Before
the Class of the Jefferson Medical College, Janu-
ary, 1847 (Philadelphia, 1847), 62. For examples of examinations
written by one
woman graduate of Pulte, see Examination
Papers of Mary Wolfe, Pulte Medical
College, Class of 1883 (Cincinnati, 1883).
WILLIAM BARLOW AND DAVID 0. POWELL
Homeopathy and Sexual Equality:
The Controversy Over Coeducation
at Cincinnati's Pulte Medical
College, 1873-1879
The number of women physicians in the
United States increased
dramatically during the late nineteenth
century. From a mere 200
or less in 1860, their ranks swelled to
over 7,000 by 1900.1 In Ohio,
the number of female doctors grew from
42 to 451 in the last three
decades of the century.2 Although reliable
statistics are not avail-
able, it has been estimated that a
majority of these women in Ohio
and elsewhere were trained in schools
sponsored by groups of physi-
cians who dissented from orthodox
medical therapy and were
branded as irregular sects by the
American Medical Association.3
Homeopathy, a major dissenting sect
which advocated extremely
small doses of medication, provided much
of this early educational
opportunity.4 In Ohio, for
example, the second woman to receive an
William Barlow is Professor of History
at Seton Hall University and David O.
Powell is Professor of History at C.W.
Post Center, Long Island University. The
authors wish to acknowledge the support
of the American Philosophical Society,
Penrose Fund, Grant Number 8438. A
shortened version of the paper was read at a
joint meeting of the Ohio Medical
Association and the Ohio Academy of Medical
History, Columbus, Ohio, May 15, 1979.
1. Mary Roth Walsh, "Doctors
Wanted: No Women Need Apply": Sexual Barriers in
the Medical Profession, 1835-1975 (New Haven, 1977), 186.
2. Frederick C. Waite, "Ohio
Physicians in the Nineteenth Century, A Statistical
Study," The Ohio State Medical
Journal, XL (August, 1950), 791-92.
3. Carol Lopate, Women in Medicine (Baltimore,
1968), 6.
4. Homeopathy was one of several medical
sects which emerged in the first half of
the nineteenth century and were
considered irregular because of their rejection of the
heroic therapy then practiced by most
orthodox physicians. Heroic medicine consisted
of extensive bleeding, blistering, and
sweating, together with drastic purging and
puking induced by massive doses of
calomel and other toxic substances. In contrast,
homeopathy was based on the law of
infinitesimals-the smaller the dose the more
effective the result-and provided
welcome relief to many patients formerly subjected
to the heroic regimen. Becoming popular
and somewhat fashionable in the middle