The state and women’s status

In an op-ed piece (“Working for S.C. women, and for the good of the state,” Dec. 18), Columbia College President Caroline Whitson wrote a most eloquent brief on the status of women in South Carolina, her facts crying out for state involvement and support.

She cited our deplorable ranking (second to last) among the states in women’s political representation, economic autonomy, domestic violence and health standards, and concluded that such conditions affecting 52 percent of our population are a huge impediment to our state’s growth. Another op-ed by another Columbia College official (Sept. 13) was titled, “For the state to prosper, women’s status must improve.”

So the deplorable ranking is not just a women’s problem; it’s the state’s problem. But instead of calling for state action, this piece informed us that Columbia College had taken over the responsibility of raising funds for the S.C. Commission on Women. Why? Because the commission had been rejected by Gov. Mark Sanford.

Dr. Whitson put it another way. She praised the governor for his new approach: a memorandum of agreement between Columbia College and the S.C. Commission on Women to develop a private/public partnership to address the issues facing women. She wrote of her exciting plans to collect data and implement programs to improve the status of women, including holding conferences and workshops, setting up a Web site, reviewing existing laws and more.

I think it is wonderful that Dr. Whitson and Columbia College stepped up to the plate to take on the responsibility the state seems to have shed. I say this because, in the article, I could find no mention of any contribution from the state, other than the memorandum of agreement.

Anyone who follows politics knows that a state agency without state funding is a paper tiger. It has no power. Why did the governor veto funding for the commission? My take is that it was his first step to advance his passion to shrink and privatize government. And why not start with women, who have less political power to defend their interests?

South Carolina is the only state in the union without a state-funded women’s commission. Perhaps that will be remedied by a bill Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter has filed to recreate a free-standing Commission on Women, funded by a line item in the budget.

A commission with funds could work in a true partnership with Columbia College. It is unreasonable to expect a private college to bear the entire cost and responsibility of the status of South Carolina’s women. The effort it is making now will be hard to sustain; it has its own considerable responsibilities towards its students, faculty and funders.

There are some who say the commission was defunded because its programs had not improved the status of women. I would suggest the lack of progress is not the fault of the Commission on Women, but the fact that the commission, and the problems of women, historically have not been priorities of our Legislature. And that may be because it is a Legislature with fewer women than any other state.

Let us hope that no matter its form, the first goal of a public-private partnership will be to increase the number of women in the Legislature and in other policy-making positions.

Mrs. Keyserling is a former member of the S.C. House.