BlogU

  • Motherhood After Tenure: Conferencing

    By Aeron Haynie October 15, 2008 9:35 pm

    Today I travel to my lone academic conference of the year (not counting conferences within driving distance). Like many professors who teach at regional state institutions, one conference a year is all my university pays for. When I was starting out, I attended more, and paid for much of the costs out of my own pocket. While some conferences feel like a waste of time and energy, at their best conferences can be exciting ways to meet other interested scholars, learn about ground-breaking new research, get feedback on developing ideas, and network. Two of the three books I’ve co-edited have come directly out of conversations I’ve had at conferences.

    This year I’m attending the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, in Edmonton, Canada. I’ve been to this conference before and it’s one of my favorites. Perhaps because the scholarship of teaching is a relatively new and interdisciplinary field (and not recognized by many departments as truly “scholarship) there is little posturing or clique-ishness. After all, it’s very hard to judge who’s a big shot in a different discipline. In addition, I have co-edited a book on signature pedagogies -- or the ways that different disciplines teach undergraduates the central habits of mind of those disciplines -- that will be debuting at this conference, and I’m genuinely excited to share our work. (Shameless self-promotion here.)

    Yet, like many other Mama, PhDs, as the time for the conference draws near, I find myself overwhelmed with the logistics of obtaining travel money, re-arranging my childcare schedule, driving two hours to the airport, and finding additional daycare. In addition to the complicated and frustrating process of getting reimbursed for travel expenses (which maddens me, since it’s a necessary part of our jobs!) , I wonder why there is no official provision for child-care. For example, while I am away this week, I will incur an additional $148 in daycare expenses, yet there is no room on our university’s travel reimbursement form for this expense. Why not? Luckily, I have a supportive husband who will take care of my daughter, dropping her off and picking her up at daycare. But what are single mothers supposed to do? Parents could bring their children with them, but my institution does not cover the costs of taking a child to a conference, and this particular conference doesn’t provide daycare.

    I realize that this might seem like a trivial issue, but it speaks to a larger problem of how institutions (do not) support parents. Attending academic conferences (as well as NEH seminars and other longer conferences which are even more difficult for parents of young children) should not be a privilege; it is, after all, an integral part of our profession.

Go to comments (13) »
Advertisement
On the Job Market Together?

Comments on Motherhood After Tenure: Conferencing

  • day care as a conference expense
  • Posted by Libby , Mama, PhD contributor on October 16, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT

  • A former colleague once simply added her additional day care expenses to her t&e report under "other expenses." She was a single mom, and there was no way she could go to the conference without additional daycare, so she put it on the form. In the end I think she was covered for it, but it did take some back and forth. I wonder if we all just assumed it was covered (rather than asking first!) if eventually it would become the norm. (No doubt easier to say/do in private institutions where the rules of reimbursement are sometimes more flexible...)

  • Posted by A little bitter on October 16, 2008 at 3:00pm EDT

  • Perhaps childcare is not reimbursed because that's not fair to those who are childless. I don't get reimbursed for care for my animals (who are elderly and require medication) when I go away to a conference either, and while it's not as expensive as childcare, it's not cheap. Nor do people caring for their elderly parents get money to hire a nurse while they go to a conference, often they are torn whether to go at all.

    As a single person who has no children, I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this, because the university spends less on me yet gets the same amount of work-- i don't have a spouse or child who take advantage of health care benefits, or tuition remission, or any other perks available, but don't receive any additional compensation. I understand that having children requires more resources, but I don't think it's fair of parents to always expect to get more just because they chose to be parents. Having children means being willing to pay for these expenses yourself. It's part of the deal.

    Also, if you include childcare expenses, it could give a university a reason to turn down your funding request in favor of someone who doesn't require them, saying you cost more to send than someone else.

  • Posted by Parentbychoice on October 16, 2008 at 11:00pm EDT

  • With all due respect to "bitter," as I'm sure this argument is one that he or she has heard before, the animals in question will not be paying her social security some day, the same social security that is currently easing the burden on those with elderly parents. The children of her coworkers, requiring daycare and healthcare today, will.

    Put in more specific, personal terms, part of my choice to parent involves ultimately, healthy adults out in to the world who will make a contribution to society through their work, taxes, philanthropies, etc.. I don't know a single parent who does not possess this goal.

    Parenthood is a choice that involves immeasurable work and reward, both in our personal and professional lives. Work that on the whole, parents in the workplace take on gladly without asking anything of their institution. Moreover, employees with dependents pay HUNDREDS of dollars more each month for healthcare than their single counterparts. Providing childcare and healthcare for these dependents is simply a way of supporting those in the workplace in their efforts to raise, well, the next generation that will succeed them and support the entitlements of the workers who proceeded them, including "bitter."

  • Posted by Can't hurt too much to ask.... on October 17, 2008 at 10:20am EDT

  • I had a colleague (single mom of two doggies) who was reimbursed for kennel fees when she travelled to conferences. Kind of puts asking for childcare reimbursement into perspective, doesn't it?

  • CHOICE
  • Posted by Choice on October 17, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT

  • Choice is the key word here. You chose to be a parent. You will get unending benefits from this, both in the tangible and non-tangible senses. With parenthood comes some sacrifice. I hardly think $150 a year for childcare during a single conference is unreasonable for someone to pay, when they have made the *choice* to be a parent.

    When you choose to be a parent, you choose to make certain sacrifices. It's not up to those who have no children to make sacrifices on your behalf. We all choose the sacrifices we make, and these are yours, and I resent the implication that childless people are somehow selfish.

    I'm happy to pay for education for children, and even healthcare for poor children, but really, I think arranging for the care of your children is not too much to ask of parents. It's part of being a parent.

    And by the way, I think the argument that animals don't pay into social security is ridiculous. Animal care was simply an example of the expenses others incur in going to conferences that are not reimbursed. Because someone's elderly parents are no longer paying into social security, does that mean that being reimbursed for their care while they are away is less important than paying for your child care? I think not. But it's a sacrifice people make.

    The same person also can't put their parents on their health insurance at work, much as they could use the discount. Their parents paid into Social Security. They paid taxes. They certainly pay thousands of dollars in medical bills.

    And who says that all childless people are childless by choice? Infertility happens.

  • Posted by parentbychoice on October 17, 2008 at 2:15pm EDT

  • And I think comparing children to animals in this way is ridiculous. Ideally, children grow up to become productive members of society, indeed, paying into social security, etc.. Animals do not.

    Moreover, it makes no sense to say one would be willing to support healthcare for children in poverty and NOT for children of those who work in the teaching profession (who still pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurence WITH employer supplementation and probably would not be able to afford it.)

    I am not chastising anyone who is childless by choice or otherwise (and believe me, I have struggled with infertility firsthand). What I am chastising is the petty resentment they seem to feel towards those of us who are raising the next generation. In the end, our children WILL support them in one way or another. There's no getting around it.

    One only needs to look at European countries who are starting to feel the long-term effects of negative population growth and bending over backwards to provide incentives to families, to see the importance of society as a whole, supporting families with children to a reasonable extent.

  • Posted by JC on October 17, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT

  • What an interesting thread to follow, I appreciate the comments made on both "sides" of this issue. The thought I was having as I was reading the initial post was the "time away from family" issue for parents attending conferences. As a mom of 2 small children and someone who attends a couple of out-of-town conferences a year, I struggle with many of the issues already mentioned (extra coverage for kids, etc.) However, I have to admit that the biggest hurdle for me in attending a conference is not the financial one but the fact that I am, in yet another way, taking time away from my children, even as I "feed" myself professionally. There's just no compensation for that on the ol' travel expense form!

  • Thanks for your comments!
  • Posted by Aeron on October 20, 2008 at 9:45am EDT

  • I appreciate all of the comments!

    I agree that $150. isn't a big financial burden, and I am very aware that I made a choice to become a parent. But I was trying (and perhaps failing) to make a larger point: that conferences are presented as options (and hence little support is given for the ways they may disrupt one's life), but if fact they are vital for one's professional growth.

    The issue of parenthood should not divide us; rather, let's all fight for the right to integrate our personal lives (which may involve children, or aging parents, or pets) into our professional lives.

    BTW: becoming a single mother is often not a choice, but it makes it very difficult to attend conferences, etc. Fortunately, I am not in that situation, but I often think how difficult my life would be if I were.

  • To Parent By Choice
  • Posted by Choice on October 20, 2008 at 12:11pm EDT

  • I don't think you understood my comment. I said that animal care was simply one example of the expenses incurred by someone going to a conference. I'm not comparing animals to children, I'm comparing expenses to expenses. If I were comparing animals to children, I'd insist that universities allow people to have pet insurance if they don't have children, and that's NOT an argument I'm making. I'm making the argument that childcare isn't the only expense people have, and that the university can't be expected to cover one (childcare) and not others (eldercare, for example) because it is unequal treatment.

    Now, to clarify further, since you skipped over this part of the post-- I do the same work as a parent does. I receive less compensation (and since i have never received any government handouts (not even education grants) and I doubt that social security will be around by the time I retire, I doubt your children will ever be supporting me to any extent). I think this is unfair. Period. I have no problem with the university giving you insurance and other benefits for your spouse or children, but I don't get anything extra. And believe me, I have thousands of dollars of my own medical expenses, and would also love to be able to help my parents with theirs-- and they have been productive members of society, and have contributed, just as you are certain your children will. But because they're my parents, not my children or my spouse, I don't get any help, even though I work just as hard as any parent. They're not legally my obligations, but I don't want to see my parents worrying about medical bills when they have health issues and want to help when I am financially able.

    Why do i receive less compensation just because I do not have children? That is unfair. I don't think that's petty at all. I don't have fewer expenses than parents, just different ones. Just because my expenses aren't child or spouse related, they're not compensated. I won't have children to take care of me in my old age. Why can't I take the money the university would have used to subsidize spouse or child health insurance and put it toward my own future healthcare costs? Or toward those of my parents? This does not seem fair to me. Why does the woman in the office next to me get thousands of dollars a year more than me just because she chose to have a child? Or why does a parent who has six kids get more than a parent with two? Wouldn't the parent with two kids want more help with their kids' expenses? And if you're doing the same job, why shouldn't you receive the same compensation?

  • Posted by ProfMama , Assistant Professor at Univ of Colorado on October 20, 2008 at 3:25pm EDT

  • As a single mother who's mortgage check bounced after purchasing a ticket for my daughter to the national conference for my discipline, I could not agree more with the premise of this article. I have not been to a conference since my daughter was born precisely because the stress of considering all of the extra costs has been too much to handle. Fortunately or not, I was invited to sit on two panels at this year's meeting so I had no choice. And everyone who knows me knows--where I go, my daughter goes... I think I'll give the "Other items" a try on my reimbursement form...

  • Choices
  • Posted by Suzanne Smith on October 21, 2008 at 10:10am EDT

  • Childless women stop complaining! You also made choices and now must live with the consequences. As a childless person you do not get as much. You do not get additional health care coverage or tuition remimbursement. So what? You want these benefits, have a child or two. Being childless puts you outside the mainstream and you must accept that. The default drive is family not childless couples or individuals. That's how life works. Listen to our politicians -- it's all anout working families - not single income no kids individuals - As a childless person you are the new "other." This is a fine choice to make but stop crying over it.

    Having said that, I have four children (That's right!) and asking a unviersity to foot the costs of childcare (or dog care for that matter) is absurd. My choice was to have the kids and that means taking on the additional financial burden. So women with children suck it up and pay for childcare. The good news is eventually they grow up and you don't have to pay for all that babysitting.

  • Fairness Is an Illusion
  • Posted by Megan on October 22, 2008 at 11:05am EDT

  • The idea that parents get extra benefits makes the logically confused assumption that individuals and societies are not interlinked. The university does pay more for my family health coverage than it does for my single colleague's coverage (I also pay a much bigger premium than my single colleague), but I also contribute to society in a way that is different from the way my single colleague does. Regardless of whether my children ever pay into a social security system that supports my single colleague, they will contribute to the next generation of our society--they will help pave the roads or drive the ambulances or run the MRI equipment or mop the hospital floor or grow the food that is served in the cafeteria. Without the thousands of hours I put into raising those children, such a future isn't possible. Of course, while I'm running the washer and dryer so that the Cub Scout uniforms are clean, my single colleague may cure cancer and save the lives of my children. It is futile to try to figure out whether a single person or a person with children contributes more to society. They both contribute in ways that elude measurement--let alone comparison. We cannot figure out what "fair" would look like--and all of us can poke lots of holes in any approximation someone else produces. We can figure out what needs are though--that everyone needs health care and everyone needs a salary and everyone needs their travel expenses covered. A smart university will look at how to make each colleague productive, not how to make sure each colleague feels that she gets "as much" as another colleague.

  • A new definition of family is needed...
  • Posted by Jillian Burcar , Pre-doc Fellow at HWS on October 24, 2008 at 5:15am EDT

  • I think the core issue here is that the current medicalized definition of family is too limited to realistically deal with the wide array of issues individuals face on a daily basis.

    For instance in insurance concerns, instead of simply allowing children to be covered because they're automatically dependents, why not expand the choice an individual has in regards to the people in their life they'd like to cover with their insurance benefits?

    Similarly, how sad is it that there are numerous childless/CFBC scholars in institutions across the country--and from what I understand, most institutions offer tuition remission for faculty (and sometimes even staff)--but if a person is childfree (by choice or not), why aren't they allowed to sponsor a child in their life with the tuition remission? My husband and I may not have children of our own, but wouldn't it be great if I could guarantee that my nieces or nephews would have free tuition if they wanted it? Or what about sponsoring kids in the neighboring communities of the local college?

    I just think the current definition of family is way too narrow to ever truly be fair--except to the people who are making money off of the narrow definition. Think about it: the current definition is an inherently survivalist/selfish one. Every family should be out for themselves instead of creating communities that mutually benefit one another.

    I mean, look at the bickering even this simple post created. That's a product of an inherently narrow definition of family. If it was more inclusive, then I wonder if bitterness on both sides would start to fade away and communities could grow instead.

Print
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed