Opening of the Medical School of the Johns Hopkins University to women on equal terms with men—Consultations with Dr. Zakrzewska by women interested in the event—Her report of the attitude of the community towards women surgeons—New building for the Maternity Department of the Hospital (the Sewall Maternity and, later, the Helen Morton Wing)—Opening of the Goddard Home for Nurses—Because of misbehavior of men students, Columbia University of Georgetown closes its doors to women—Dr. Zakrzewska writes on “the Emancipation of Woman: Will it be a Success?” (1888-1894.)
These were eventful days (1888-1890) for all friends of the advancement of the medical education of women, leading up as they did to the opening to women of the medical school of the Johns Hopkins University in 1890.
The same fear of beguilement and subsequent disillusionment which Dr. Zakrzewska had felt regarding the proposed opening to women of the Medical School of Harvard University, away back at the time when the future of the New England Female Medical College hung in the balance, haunted the minds of all workers for the cause of medical women.
So many colleges had been opened to women and had then been closed to them, in response to the storm raised by one or another protesting group, that experience had made women feel they must always be on their guard.
One of the prominent women of Worcester wrote to Dr. Zakrzewska in 1890:
Our Women’s Club has been urged to contribute to assist the Medical School of the Johns Hopkins University, with the idea that women shall have there all the advantages which men have, and as I have seen your name with other well-known names, I desire to ask if you really think that they will act in good faith if the $100,000 should be given them.
We are told by parties in Baltimore who ought to know that the whole policy of Johns Hopkins is conservative in spite of its high rank, and that women would never be admitted on the same terms as men.
As one of an investigating committee, I am to report on October 22d. Will you be so kind as to tell me what you think of the scheme? If the money is raised and offered on condition that women shall be so received, we are told that it will be refused. In that case, it would not seem worth while to give anything towards it.
This must be a matter which would greatly interest you, and I venture to hope that you will find a moment to reply.
In the course of her correspondence with Dr. Zakrzewska, a leading woman of Baltimore who was one of those foremost in the present movement, writes:
I will bear your cautions in mind and watch very carefully. I myself have not much confidence in the willingness of many men to give women a fair chance, but since out of the four women who began this movement, three of them have fathers on the two boards who are deeply convinced of the righteousness of the cause, I cannot help feeling hopeful. Moreover, the physicians at the Hospital have been most cordial and helpful to every well-qualified woman who has sought its advantages.
I inclose a copy of the trustees’ resolutions. I do not see how, although they reserve the right of making “such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for the government of its School of Medicine,” they can possibly ignore the paragraph that “in making such rules and regulations, the terms of this minute shall always be respected and observed”—and these terms we insisted should be the same, not equal.
However, I agree with you that we must watch carefully, and if there should ever be a sign of trying to evade it you may depend on us to fight it out.
It is interesting to note that half of the $100,000 was given by one woman, Miss Mary Garrett, daughter of one of the original trustees of the Johns Hopkins University. Also, that the $10,000 previously offered by Miss Hovey to Harvard, on condition of its admitting women and which was declined by its medical faculty, was transferred to the Johns Hopkins.
When, in 1888, Dr. Zakrzewska and her two earliest co-workers on the Hospital staff, Drs. Sewall and Morton, resigned as attending physicians and became advisory physicians, Dr. Sewall had in the state of her health an additional reason for relinquishing her arduous duties. And Dr. Zakrzewska suffered keenly during the next few years in realizing the approaching loss of this particularly dear colleague, who had always been to her as her own child though her junior by only a few years. Dr. Sewall died in February, 1890.