Search News


Browse Archives

News

Hiring Women as Full Professors

August 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When colleges and universities release reports about the state of gender equity on their faculties, administrators quickly follow up with a caveat: The numbers may look out of balance over all, they say, but that's because most of the senior professors are all men, and the greater share of women among junior professors provides reassurance that things will get better over time.

That sort of comment reflects a reality that most institutions confront. Many of those at the rank of full professor started their academic careers in an era when the number of women coming out of Ph.D. programs was very small and those who did earn their doctorates weren't necessarily welcomed into the profession.

The University of Texas at Austin this week announced the results of faculty hiring for the coming academic year, showing notable gains for women. And in the College of Liberal Arts, the results show that -- in addition to making institutions welcoming for young female scholars -- a top research university can change the dynamic at the senior level, too. The college hired six women as full professors -- when the greatest number ever hired previously had been three and the norm in most years has been one or none.

While some educators at Texas have been focused for years on hiring more women as faculty members, the progress followed a detailed analysis that was released in November and that many credit with drawing wider attention to these issues at Austin. The study found that women made up 19 percent of the full professors, 25 percent of the tenured faculty, and 39 percent of the tenure-track faculty -- percentages that placed UT behind peer institutions that are also leading research universities.

For the first year after the critique was released, 42 percent of the 117 faculty members joining the university are women -- above the percentages of any category to date. In the liberal arts college, the figure is 46 percent -- with a particular focus on attracting senior women. In addition to hiring a record number of six full professors who are women (one of whom has yet to be officially announced), the college made counteroffers to fend off efforts to woo three other full professors who are women.

"What they did is very unusual, because there are more issues with recruiting full professors, who have more complicated lives and who may be very happy where they are," said Philippa Levine, a British historian who will be moving to Austin from the University of Southern California. Levine said she wasn't looking to move, but was swayed by the "dynamism" she found at Texas. And at a time when public universities are complaining that they can't outbid private universities in putting together packages, Texas did so.

Texas "absolutely" offered her more. "It's an entirely appropriate and extremely generous package," she said. "My sense was that UT was very shrewd in understanding the way these politics operate." She added that while she is pleased to see Texas and other institutions hiring more women in the junior ranks, "you don't change the structures" unless you also expand the number of women in the senior ranks.

The university has some advantages this year over its counterparts elsewhere in that while there is belt tightening going on in Texas, as everywhere, the magnitude isn't as great as it is elsewhere. There are no furloughs at the university. There is a merit-based raise pool. And there is money to go after top candidates.

Randy Diehl, dean of liberal arts, said it was important for universities not to simply wait for junior professors to rise through the ranks. He said that the presence of women in the senior ranks is part of what you need to encourage younger women, and that there are issues of bias if an institution doesn't add women as full professors. Diehl noted, for example, that the highest salaries for full professors go to those who didn't come up through the ranks, but who were recruited from one institution to another. Universities that rely on gradual promotion from within will not see a narrowing of average faculty salaries between men and women, he said.

"If you look at the data going back 20 years, universities have been statistically biased for men in the senior ranks," he said.

No searches are limited to women, he said. But by focusing attention (and money), the liberal arts division for the first time ever hired more women than men as full professors by a margin of 6 to 3, the exact opposite of a year ago. And the university made a conscious decision to act on "any good opportunities" even if that meant expanding the hiring plan.

So a job search that started off without the intent to hire a senior scholar in Middle Eastern studies turned into a decision to hire two senior scholars in the field, when the department was able to recruit a wife-and-husband team from Harvard University -- Jo Ann Hackett, former director of graduate studies in Near Eastern languages and civilizations at Harvard, and her husband, John Huehnergard, a former chair of the department.

The other women hired as full professors (whose appointments have been announced) are: Jennifer Johnson-Hanks, an anthropologist who (along with her husband, William Hanks, also an anthropologist in the same department) is leaving the University of California at Berkeley; and two linguists coming from Pennsylvania State University: Barbara Bullock and A. Jacqueline Toribio.

Because these are women who have successful careers at their former institutions and no immediate need to move, Diehl said that the efforts succeeded in part because faculty members at Texas were keeping their ears open. "We seize opportunities where they arise, and when we have a shot at recruiting a distinguished scholar who is a woman, we try to make that happen," he said. "We're looking out there and asking who is movable."

Johnson-Hanks, one of those who was, said that she had great students and colleagues at Berkeley, and wasn't so much looking as "willing to listen" when she and her husband were approached. On the whole, she said she was drawn by "an intellectual vision for where the university was going," and she said that the prime factor in moving was related to scholarship and the sense of vitality she found.

But to the extent money was a role, UT held the upper hand (and the decision was made prior to the most recent round of cuts at the University of California). She said Texas offered more money, and that while Berkeley matched the offer, other financial factors favored Texas. "We could buy a gorgeous house for what we got selling a tiny house in California," she said. "We will be living where there are great public schools, but in California, we couldn't afford a home in the areas with great public schools."

The liberal arts division is not ignoring opportunities outside the full professor ranks -- and the shift is evident there, too. While 46 percent of all tenured and tenure-track women joining the college this year are women, that percentage was 36 percent three years ago, and 32 percent the year before that.

Texas officials said that they could not have made the progress they did at the senior levels without a commitment from the senior administration and a willingness to spend real time on the process. Identifying, recruiting and moving senior faculty members takes longer. "Most of these efforts started two years ago. This is not a one-year thing," said Richard Flores, senior associate dean.

Even as Texas officials are celebrating progress in recruiting senior level women, they are considering other strategies for other parts of the university.

Judith H. Langlois, vice provost of the university, said that given that UT is "very large and very decentralized," the view of the central administration has been to "resist the temptation to come up with one and only one way to promote gender parity."

In the engineering college, for example, officials have decided to tell departments that they have to be "more serious" about identifying women and minority candidates for finalist pools, moving beyond the idea that you just announce an opening "and pick three to come in." Langlois said that particularly in fields like engineering, it was important to find ways to expand the pools. So departments are doing much more outreach to national laboratories and industry laboratories than in the past because these employers have hired plenty of female engineering Ph.D.'s.

Such efforts, she said, need to take place along with recruiting talent from other universities "or else you just have the major universities playing musical chairs."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Hiring Women as Full Professors

  • Posted by Remarkable on August 14, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • This sort of behavior has been going on quietly for years, but it is remarkable to see discrimination described in such detail and so openly, even proudly, by the institution and the women involved in this scheme. Texas is a public institution, is this constitutional? Of course the only thing higher ed understands is money; let's hope that men and fair-minded women cross UT off their list of places to send a check until they get the message.

  • Sex discrimination violates Title VII
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on August 14, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • If the University of Texas is treating candidates differently on the basis of sex (or race, ethnicity, or religion)--and this appears to be the case--then it is violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was clear before the decision by the Supreme Court this summer in the New Haven firefighters case, but it is even clearer now. See my discussion here: http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=2209. Someone should sue.

  • Unanticipated consequences
  • Posted by Gregory McColm , Mathematics & Statistics at USF on August 14, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • A younger academic should take a very careful look at a package that includes an senior position. Many places have a fixed number of promotions or steps, and these are usually the only points where one can get a large raise. Being hired at a senior position necessarily entails giving up these promotional raises. I know several people who were pleased to be hired at a senior position only to discover that their salaries were effectively stuck.

  • Won't really help
  • Posted by ADD on August 14, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Not only is UTA's practice of favoring women discriminatory, it will just make the imbalance worse at other institutions. If there are a limited number of women currently eligible to be full professors, time is the only thing that will change the situation.

  • Check your facts
  • Posted by Affected at UT Austin on August 14, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • UT Austin does have furloughs, is having them and is currently in the middle of executing them. This will have long term effects on the quality of applicants seeking jobs here. Why would someone want to work on campus at 2/3 the salary with no job security, when they can work in the private sector, making significantly more salary offering the same level of job security? Actions like this will have severe long term impact on the campus, but the administrators are looking at these actions very much in the short term and working under the pretense of a tough budget cycle. BTW, this university received more funding this year than last year from our state legislature.

  • on the other hand
  • Posted by Female full professor on August 14, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Sure, you may be stuck salary-wise. But moving between institutions is often the only way to get significant raises (as any victim of salary compression can testify). Sometimes institutions offer some equity raises over time, but more often women are paid significantly less even though they have the same rank, experience, publishing record, etc.

    Is it discrimination if the actions are correcting earlier discrimination?

    I agree, getting women directly to the senior ranks will help improve the situation via mentoring, more appropriate hiring and tenure/promotion decisions, and more family friendly policies. An all white, male senior faculty can be less accepting of women and minorities into their ranks. They sometimes, by themselves, just don't see the problem.

    It can be difficult to navigate a career as a woman, particularly in a STEM field. In all my undergraduate and graduate coursework, I was able to take a class taught by a woman only once (BS in comsc/math, MBA, PhD in info. systems, each at a different institution). As faculty, I changed institutions a few times to get the pay increases (but I never got a promotion as part of the move; I always earned tenure and/or promotion before I left). Each time I moved, I found myself in a situation in which men at the same rank with the same or less experience (etc.) were being paid more. In addtion, other men with the same or less experience (etc.) were subsequently hired in at a higher salary within a year or so of my hire. From what I hear and read, this situation is not uncommon and seems to persist over time.

    Another major factor in each of my moves was that there were women with whom I wished to collaborate at the new institution. And, as department head or on a hiring committee, I was sometimes able to interest/recruit other women and to influence the hiring decision in favor of women.

    So, I think hiring women directly into senior rank can help an institution correct these inequities more quickly.

  • One-Way Diversity
  • Posted by Male Ph.D. on August 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I assume that along with the efforts UT is making to diversity the faculty, they are also doing the right thing and in good faith are working to recruit and hire more men in the ranks of staff and administration, as well as correct the gender imbalance in student admissions and graduation rates. Correct?

    However, addressing issues related to teaching staff diversity and mentoring students at the college level is waiting far too long, so of course there will be a nation-wide effort to diversify the teaching profession in the K-12 schools as well, right? After all, a situation of imbalance between men and women has existed for many decades and is clearly evidence of active, institutional discrimination, so of course we'd want to vigorously work to eliminate it in the K-12 as well. Right?

  • "Remarkable" is right!
  • Posted by ADG on August 14, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Wow, I wonder how this will pass legal muster. I know this stuff has been going on for years under the table, as it were: e.g., at my institution and as an ex-chair of the department I was given "direct guidance" by the president of the school as to how we should configure our short least during job searches...I resisted to some extent (I happen to be very much in favor of diversity, but not at the price of juggling a short list based only on gender and hue of skin color and not what we required for the line). My response to the president of the my institution was to request for his "guidance" in writing, on the college letter head, with his signature at the bottom. Needless to say that did not happen and we hired who we wanted and that ended the issue for me and my department. As "Remarkable" notes in his/her post, this specialized hiring practice is right out in the open, but at least @ UT they did it openly and for that one can some respect for the administration. They took a shot and moved. Whether, or if, someone sues and it is upheld remains, it seems to me, in play. Pretty amazing stuff though esp. w/furloughs in place and other frozen job lines at UT. So it goes in higher ed.... :-)

  • Posted by lharr04 on August 14, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Why is it that when more men than women are hired, it's not discriminatory, but that when more women than men are hired, it's discriminatory?

  • Posted by Female Asst Prof on August 14, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • It's so disappointing to read the reactionary comments of "Remarkable" and others, but I can only assume they are members of that endangered species known as White Male Academics (WMA), and have never had to face the challenge of getting a job as a minority. If they now feel a little threatened, I can understand but not sympathize. Get used to it - life as the majority is a thing of the past for you.

    Now that I've vented a bit, please be assured that UT could not do this without following affirmative action rules, which DO allow recruitment efforts to favor a protected class (in this case, these candidates may be counted as protected classes on two counts: gender and age). A legal challenge might be made to improve the hiring process, but the outcome is legally valid.

    When I was hired at my school, only 8 of 50 tenured/TT faculty were female. Of these, half were divorced or living apart from their spouses due to conflicts with dual careers. Did I worry about that school as a best fit for me and my family? You bet I did!

    And my fears were well founded since I discovered that "Big Public U's" vaunted "spousal hire program" involved not much more than getting trailing spouses job interviews at WalMart.

    Very little effort has been made in academia to understand that recruiting women may often involve recruiting their spouses/partners. How many male head of household academics do you know who would willingly quit their tenured jobs to move across the country to support their wife's academic career? When my husband did that for me, the WMAs called him crazy; everyone else applauded.

    Notice how many of these UT hires were made only after UT agreed to a package deal of two academics. That's what the future will look like, and it's high time.

  • Our litigious brothers
  • Posted by Not shocked on August 14, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Why am I not surprised that the terrified [white] male, deprived, he fears, of his automatic right-of-way, immediately threatens to sue at the first sign that the age-old blinkers may be coming off and departments are actually considering the merits of women, and, perhaps, other minorities for the jobs that have always been his by birthright? Dudes, when the percentages start tipping the other way, when women aren't overwhelmingly doing your scut work as lecturers and junior faculty in revolving-door positions, when women in all positions aren't, as at UT Austin, overwhelmingly and outrageously underpaid, then your scrota will have cause to draw up in panic. Not now. Not for a long, long time to come. Have a beer, take in the game, and get over yourselves.

  • Remarkable indeed
  • Posted by inTexas on August 14, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Well then, Remarkable, I'm sure you are suprised by UT Austin's abrupt turnabout in discriminatory practices since they so clearly discriminated last year when hiring males over females as full professors (since the number was opposite the previous year). Why is is automatically assumed that these females are less qualified?

    Reading these comments, I am more and more amazed at the total lack of critical thinking skills among faculty today. Remarkable!

  • The system is set up for men originally
  • Posted by Female Adjunct , Part-timer Hades at Megalo U. on August 14, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Hi, guys. I'm automatically shortchanged on the market because I'm female--and have a family. The dominant expectation seems that if you're "really serious" as a professional is that you drop everything for the job, including dumping your spouse/partner if he/she won't relocate, or eventually divorcing because you've lived apart for so long and have "grown apart," too. (I've met an astounding number of academics who have.)

    When I was shortlisted for a dream job, I was interviewed by an all-male, all-white, all-middle-class group who gave me a very cold reception when I offered to commute for the first semester or two because of my spouse's career. All of their wives, I had noticed when we met, had been moved like chess pieces when and where these men said they had to move. No consideration was given to my spouse because no one ever gave any for theirs. There were no other hiring models with which they could think any differently, like a senior female faculty *might* have offered. The lead interviewer seemed to project the impression that if a woman wants to do this sort of work, then she better be as flexible (or as insensitive to her mate) as a male. They eventually chose someone unattached.

    The assumptions about what is required to get a job in this and other professional fields are almost entirely based on the ideal of a younger, unattached (or, detached from family) middle-class male as an employee. It's like the old Palmolive ad with Madge the manicurist--or like fish in water--You're "soaking in it," guys! You don't see a need for corrections to be made to the system because the system works okay for you.

    To those "offended" by UT, I don't think you have much to worry about women taking over academia to your detriment. All my male academic friends from my graduating year have tenure-track jobs; damn few of my female academic friends with families do. No invasion to worry about . . .

  • Sad
  • Posted by Disappointed on August 14, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I have hired women several times. I have women co-authors, and women who have studied under my direction. I do not think that anybody can critizice me for treating women differently from men. Still, the article does not talk about the outstanding academic record of the hired faculty but rather of their gender. Honestly, it is appalling. We will not be a world class university with such policies. I could claim minority status easily and however I never did because I found it demeaning to my work. If I were one of these women hired by UT this year I will feel insulted by this article. No matter how hard you worked, in the eyes of the administration (and many of your colleagues), you are part of a quota. As for my next move, I do not know whether it would be more useful to publish additional papers or start thinking of gender surgery.

  • Did you read what came before?
  • Posted by Madge the Academic Manicurist , Scut Work Specialist, Level III at Walmart CC on August 14, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Dear Egalitarian Male,

    I'm glad to hear that some of your best friends/workmates are female. But did you even read the responses listed above? I agree that it's demeaning to the new hires that the article focuses on their gender, not their qualifications. But that's the *article writer* doing that, not necessarily the UT administrators.

    The point some of us double-xers were trying to make is that--and that I think the article was trying to make--is that without people in mentoring positions who have some understanding of what it takes to be a female professional (i.e., that many women at that stage of their careers have additional family baggage, er, responsibilities, that males often do not), there will be no equity at all.

    Our experiences in the academic workplace are different--sometimes in ways so subtle even someone as fair-minded as yourself cannot seem to pick up on them. You don't know as much about it because so many females are vetted out of the tenure-track system at the get-go.

  • Boo-yah!
  • Posted by Lance on August 14, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • This is great for Texas and wonderful for academe. Allow me - as a designated "WMA" - to applaud, wholeheartedly and without reservation, the new order of things at Texas. Since gains like this can be ephemeral, let us hope the administration and faculty maintain a commitment to a diverse faculty. The free and fair exchange of new and old ideas is a critical element of knowledge production, but it is hard to create the circumstances for it in a world with only one set of experiences represented.

    As for the boys club here, go watch District 9, grab a bourbon, read some Coetzee, and think about the changing world around you. You - we - have all the advantages, and everything to lose. But these things (better and more plentiful job opportunities, higher wages, a system of social benefits impossible to measure) weren't ever really ours. And we look mean when we cling to them. Do you want all the jobs? All of them? Forever? Really? How pathetic.

  • Posted by Male Ph.D. on August 14, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • The knee-jerk responses re. "WMAs" (I bet it took a lot of restraint to leave "angry" off the front of that acronym) is depressing. When you make comments full of shaming language and such, referencing "fear," male genitalia ("scrota") and "get[ing] over yourselves," toss out absurd strawmen ("Do you want all the jobs? All of them? Forever? Really? How pathetic."), etc., it shows for all to see the boldface distain and disrespect for, well, WMAs in academia. One expects that sort of predjudiced, stereotype-laden screed from angry teenage girls, not academics.

    One point deserves consideration:
    "The point some of us double-xers were trying to make is that--and that I think the article was trying to make--is that without people in mentoring positions who have some understanding of what it takes to be a female professional (i.e., that many women at that stage of their careers have additional family baggage, er, responsibilities, that males often do not), there will be no equity at all."
    The fact that the K-12 system is overwhelmingly out of balance vis-a-vis men in mentoring positions seems to escape many here. From the time kids enter Kindergarten through high school, they are provided with an overwhelming majority of female professionals (ie., teachers, administrators, etc.), so I'm skeptical about claims that somehow women enter college lacking female academic rofessional role models. After all, they've had 13 years - the most important and formative years - where the imbalance is in the opposite direction, so I believe that this should be taken into account. Indeed, one could look at the situation of majority-male college professors as a counterbalance to the injustice of the K-12 system.

    As I said, what I see in the education systems of Western societies is a one-way system of diversity initiatives that only look at certain types of discrimination and ignore and dismiss others. And what's their solution to the discrimination that they do recognize? More discrimination!
    What is it about discrimination being unjust don't you all understand?

  • K-12 does not equal university tenure
  • Posted by Staff Onlooker on August 14, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Women dominate K-12 education because most men feel it would be beneath them. In our culture, K-12 teaching positions are underpaid, overworked, and (particularly pre-high school) seen more as nurturers than respected professionals.

    At the same time, as the women academics in this discussion have pointed out, highly qualified women are kept out of high-paying tenure track jobs by a system that favors men -- intentionally, and (more often, but with the same outcome) unintentionally.

    (That said, I do think we should try to encourage more men to be K-12 teachers, because we should do what we can to overturn these stereotypical gender roles at every turn. But that's a topic for another session.)

    I applaud UT's conscious effort (and above-board) approach to correcting this unfair inequity. And as a staffperson at (and alumnae of) UC Berkeley, I am also thrilled to hear that they are looking to the private sector more and more, instead of just playing faculty musical chairs with other campuses.

    In the end, the history of labor law proves that the male faculty will benefit just as much from these forward-thinking approaches to recruitment and hiring. As women demand more flexible time commitments, better treatment of spouses, male faculty will follow suit. Fewer dual-professional families will have to make the impossible decision -- your career or mine?

  • bandaid over a gaping wound
  • Posted by LC on August 15, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • One wonders exactly what UT is doing concretely for the younger women they are hiring. Hiring many senior women makes them look good, but it doesn't help if junior women continue to face the same discriminatory barriers.

  • Interesting
  • Posted by Lil Johnny on August 15, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • This discussion is certainly interesting!!!

    Everybody knows that there are several reasons why men have dominated higher education in the past (and present). In the near future, women will outnumber men in higher education positions for a number of reasons. The first reason has to do will numbers. More women are going to college than men nowadays. It is almost a 2:1 female to male ratio in most colleges. As a result, we can expect that more women will soon go to graduate school at higher rates than men. Universities and colleges will hire their professors from the available pool, which will predominately be female.

    Here is the problem! You can't eliminate sexism but having sexist policies. Simiarly, you can't eliminate racism by having racist policies. Equality means treating all people as equals, regardless of race, creed, sex, religion and sexual orientation. If we want other people to be treated like equals and hope to be treated like equals ourselves, we must have policies and attitudes that promote equality, not discrimination and preferential treatment for a group based on some membership in a group.

  • Posted by Obligatory snark on August 15, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • <i>Women dominate K-12 education because most men feel it would be beneath them. In our culture, K-12 teaching positions are underpaid, overworked, and (particularly pre-high school) seen more as nurturers than respected professionals.</i>

    Whereas people in higher ed positions are underpaid, overworked, and (particularly at the undergraduate level) seen more as service providers than respected scholars.

    So it's totally different here. :)

  • Fixing the Numbers Is Easy -- Fixing the Process is Needed
  • Posted by One of the 39% on August 15, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • .

    It's not clear that wooing women who are already full professors somewhere else to fill full professor slots at this university will help the 39% of its tenure track faculty who are women make it into the ranks of tenured professors, much less those of tenured full professor.  What matters to them is that the university's promotion-to-tenure process not have a disparate impact on women.  

    Recruiting women who got promoted to tenured full professor at other schools to fill full professor slots at a university that has discriminatory promotion-to-tenure processes (I don't know Texas' situation, I am speaking hypothetically here) does take the pressure off that university's administration, though. It's a way to fix the numbers without having to fix the promotion-to-tenure process.  

    There _is_ something in Texas' Gender Equity Task Force Report that addresses the problem faced by those 39% of tenure track faculty:  "In the area of retention and promotion, the report said deans and chairs should be required to report and explain significant gender differentials in retention and promotion rates. It said gender equity should be part of the annual reviews for deans and department chairs . . ." (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/11/03/gender_equity/).  

    We need to hear more about the latter.  

    Good luck to any reporter who tries to investigate and report on it!  

    .

  • Posted by Male Ph.D. on August 15, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • The continuing reliance on outdated, hackneyed stereotypes is embarrassing, especially coming from academics.  For example: 

    Staff onlooker wrote:  "Women dominate K-12 education because most men feel it would be beneath them. In our culture, K-12 teaching positions are underpaid, overworked, and (particularly pre-high school) seen more as nurturers than respected professionals."

    That statement is absurd.  I have a number of female friends who are teachers and they all make good money, ~$80K, for 10 months work, have great benefits, work in a very nice, well-funded school system, etc.  At the same time, I know plenty of men who toil in the hot sun in jobs like painting, farming, metalworking, construction, etc., and who do so because they can't find better work, not because they are uneducated.  I also know men who have been trying to get teaching jobs for years but who can't because activists have portrayed men as sexual predators by their very nature and thus parents and other teachers (almost exclusively women) feel uncomfortable having men around young children.  Thus, every time they apply for the job they are turned down in favor of the woman.  

    Staff onlooker, do you have any evidence for what you write above, or are you simply falling back on the talking points and stereotypes you learned from feminists while in school (K-12 and college)?  I ask because I work with men who regularly endure systematic discrimination against them when trying to break into the so-called "pink collar" fields, e.g., education, nursing, psychology, literature, social work, etc.   The stories I hear are those of men who have been overtly discriminated against, not the kind of 'soft' discrimination that women complain of.  However, if any of you are so certain that there is no discrimination against men in education - or for that matter,  any time, anywhere in our society as many seem to be promoting - perhaps you would be so kind as to providing cites to valid, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate this.  Until then, I'll believe what I hear from my colleagues at least as much as I believe from folks here.  

    The vigorous denial that men, particularly white men, can be and are discriminated against even in the face of solid evidence is quite telling.  This sort of closed-mindedness is antithetical to legitimate scholarship, but sadly, is de rigueur in the contemporary academy.   

  • Male Ph.D.
  • Posted by DFS on August 15, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Here's the comment which was denied by the powers that wish to be at IHE which I had composed for you previously:

    "Not a Chance"

    It has been decreed by the powers that wish to be that it only works in one direction -- whatever the women want.

    They can move all they want, and they then expect to receive promotions because of a move? I don't understand the market forces in play there, in the common world.

    And, let's not even try to digest the normal statistics equitably.

    No, K-12 must always, for some reason, be the purview of females.

    'Just because.'

    As a postscript, I thoroughly enjoyed the above pharmaceutically addicted poster who prefaced all of her remarks by some kind of "wah, wah, woe is me" verbage about past discrimination.

    When females don't take time off of their professional obligations to do whatever they want to do, then I will pay attention to their complaints. Otherwise, their complaints must be flavored by this possibility. It is they who should just get over it. We aren't able to just put the rest of the world on hold for us; and I guess we shouldn't hold the rest of the doors open for them, either.

  • Posted by Our entitled sisters on August 16, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Why am I not surprised that the entitled [female] academic, rewarded, she finds, for her constant cries of victimization and deprivation, immediately redefines discrimination as that which affects her adversely, and something which may never be applied to the treatment of men? Girls, when you're passed over for positions for which you are eminently qualified merely because some administrators want to right historical wrongs at your expense, and despite the fact that you neither took any part in the perpetuation of that injustice NOR did the recipient ever suffer from that injustice, then maybe you can allow your labia to loosen up a bit and bellow out your cries of victimization. Until that time, grab a glass of wine, watch some Lifetime, and get over yourselves.

  • The Woman (and Man) Question
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 16, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • "If we want other people to be treated like equals and hope to be treated like equals ourselves, we must have policies and attitudes that promote equality, not discrimination and preferential treatment for a group based on some membership in a group."

    A good starting point. UT and several who post here seem in favor of a policy that (the group) WMAs see as something like "solving a discriminatory practice with more discrimination." Yet . . .

    What is YOUR solution, WMAs? Where history has left an imbalance, what policies can you think of that would create balance without shifting or spreading around some pain? (This is given our present economic system with all its artificial choke points. See Participatory Economics for a radical solution to the full-employment problem.)

    Or maybe everything is presently well balanced and women now want dominance, and WMAs are saying "thus far and no farther"? Maybe it's a question of perception. Dale Spender's studies showed that a typical conversation between a man and a woman causes both, BOTH conversants to feel uncomfortable if the woman speaks for more than one-third of the time.

  • The Solution is Simple
  • Posted by Male Ph.D. on August 16, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • Curro Romero wrote:

    "What is YOUR solution, WMAs? Where history has left an imbalance, what policies can you think of that would create balance without shifting or spreading around some pain?"

    You assume that a balance is necessary and desirable - I say it is neither.  In other words, the genitalia that a person possesses doesn't matter, all that matters is the job performance.  If the faculty are all white men who do the job better than anyone else, then I don't see a problem; just as I don't see a problem with nursing staff that are all women.  

    Men work longer hours, are more willing to make the sacrifices with their lifestyle to put in the effort to successfully compete (indeed, competition is good because it provides commensurate rewards for working hard), etc., so it only makes sense that they would dominate faculty ranks, especially in the STEM fields.  

    The Washington Post touched on this subject in a fascinating article about physicians:

    "About a third of America's doctors, and half of its medical students, are women. One survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association found that female doctors reported working 38.6 "patient care" hours per week and their male counterparts worked about 46 hours."

    "Fifty-four percent of women counted flexible scheduling as very important, compared with 26 percent of men. Almost twice as many women said they preferred jobs with limited or no "on call" responsibilities."

    See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903583.html for details.  

    The article - as well as studies conducted in Canada and the U.K. - discusses the impending shortage of physicians in large part because the proportion of women has risen.  As mentioned, women don't want to work as many hours as men do, so patients are having trouble getting appointments.   I believe that in general, female professors (and other professionals) behave the same.   This is prime example of why gender parity is not only unnecessary, but undesirable.  

    This also raises the issue a 'equal access in the workplace.'  It seems to me that women demand that they are allowed to have parity of numbers in traditionally men's professions, arguing that they are equally capable and that discrimination is the only thing keeping them out of those "old boy's clubs."  But in fact, when women are put into those professions (many times due to affirmative action programs and not merit), instead of competing on equal terms they change the rules to favor them, e.g., maternity leave, so-called 'family friendly' policies, stopping the tenure clock for pregnancy and childbirth, etc.  And when universities and corporations bow to the demands of women, they are actually acknowledging that women indeed aren't as capable, productive, etc., as men are.  Which makes this whole situation richly ironic.  

  • Male Ph.D.: On Talent and Supply and Demand
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 17, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Very good. Now see Participatory Economics on solutions to problems of shortages (in nurses, physicians, etc.), productivity (why should men and women overproduce in certain "traditional" areas as a rationalization for restricting access for all humans with talent in those areas?), childrearing, etc. (I always felt my mother would have been a better mother had she been able to develop her talents. And my father would have been a better father if he hadn't been overproducing outside the home.)

    See also Gloria Steinam's classic essay, "If Men Could Menstruate."

    That is to say, if men dominated nursing it would be rationalized as needing much more pay and prestige because it is such stressful, responsible, dirty work, etc. As it is, because it is predominantly women doing it, it is underpaid, according to supply-and-demand principles. You see, the market often distorts supply and demand.

    Or if men dominated child rearing. You get the idea. Or would men come to feel frustrated that the fullness of their humanity, their other talents, were not manifesting and would they then start to demand more opportunities to make their own contributions? Your non-solution is what we might term a market one rather than a strictly supply and demand one. There's a distinction that has been pointed out by economists. The market is historical and is shot through with social psychology, sexism, racism, classism, etc. If you want objectivity, look to supply and demand, not markets. But you seem to assume that "objectivity" is what already determinined traditional professions. It isn't. Rather, traditions were established through established political power, which in turn created "markets" as they have come down to us. "The past," said Walt Whitman, "is the push of you."

    I'm very interested in how societies rationalize things as they are, which close off the development of all talent. Society could use as much talent as there is out there, not just restrict it to "traditional" roles. You say genitalia don't matter. Then you invoke "tradition" in which that is precisely, historically, what always mattered. Do you see the problem with that line?

    See Participatory Economics as a suggested model for achieving supply/demand, de-centralized planning over against "markets." Were such a model in place the subject of this discussion wouldn't be an issue. There might be other issues, to be sure. But not this one.

     

  • Someone should sue? Yes.
  • Posted by David Rogers , Assistant General Counsel at Texas Legal Foundation on August 17, 2009 at 11:00pm EDT
  • As Roger Clegg so clearly and succinctly pointed out, the actions of the University are clearly in violation of federal law.

    As Remarkable pointed out, the only thing higher ed understands is money. But even though they may not understand a federal civil rights lawsuit, they will pay attention to it.

    Anyone interested will be welcome at the offices of the Texas Legal Foundation.

  • No Dice, Try Again
  • Posted by Male Ph.D. on August 18, 2009 at 4:45am EDT
  • Curro Romero said: "That is to say, if men dominated nursing it would be rationalized as needing much more pay and prestige because it is such stressful, responsible, dirty work, etc. As it is, because it is predominantly women doing it, it is underpaid, according to supply-and-demand principles. You see, the market often distorts supply and demand."

    Speculation, and based on hackneyed stereotypes at that.  Got a citation to back up the assertion above?  Indeed, my experience is that occupations that are heavily female are overpaid, based on artificial pressures from politically-correct special interest groups to bring women's vs. men's pay to parity even though the women don't deserve to be paid the same wage based on hours worked, productivity, etc.  

    I'm not buying it, especially because you cite Gloria Steinem, who to my knowledge has never published a legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly paper on the subject.  Invoking Steinem is like me citing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al., so I wouldn't go down that road if I were you.

  • Citation
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 18, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • See Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991 for an economic model that renders the above discussion a non-issue by dissolving the artificial chokepoints that require men to be exploited or to exploit themselves in a strictly competition-driven market. (This sense, that men are exploited in this system, though in a different way than women, I think, informs this whole discussion. The answer is not to beat back the gains of women, but to consider developing a non-market, de-centralized economy.) The question whether nurses and teachers, etc. are under- or overpaid has an objective remedy in the supply/demand model rendered mathematically in Albert's and Hahnel's peer-reviewed treatise. That for rhetorical appeal to logic, science, objectivity.

    In Cultural Studies, see Dale Spender's essay on the discomfort both a man and a woman feel when the woman "dominates" a conversation by speaking more than one-third of the time. (Sorry I don't have this citation to hand but will look for it. It's peer-reviewed.) That for a scientific account of the relationship between science, social psychology and social power relations.

    For satire see Gloria Steinam's "If Men Could Menstruate." For that matter, Rush Limbaugh's satire against liberals often strikes me as insightful. Humor derives from its appeal to the "kernel of truth" effect.

  • Dale Spender Citation (Second Attempt to Post)
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 18, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • The Writing or the Sex?: Or Why You Don't Have to Read Women's Writing to Know It's No Good. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989: 9-11. Spender writes on "the power of unwritten social codes to determine perception" (11).

  • Oh, Good Grief
  • Posted by cts on August 18, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • 1) From what premises is the conclusion derived that this effort to bring in more senior woemn is discriminatory? Was there an open position for which men were not allowed to apply? (No; rather, the University wanted to improve its faculty gender profile and find senior mentors for women faculty - as there are insufficient senior women to mentor the junior faculty. It also, no doubt, wanted to diversify decision-making at the senior faculty level.

    2) DFS: Senior level hires almost always involve a big raise and/or a promotion; that's how higher ed institutions lure settled faculty away from other places.

    3) DFS and others: Women bear children. This is usually regarded as a service to the species, not simply 'whatever she wants to do." In other words, bearing and rearing children is not comparable to taking up a hobby - not from the perspective of humanity. Indeed, it ought not to be seen as such by higher educational institutions. Think about it: as desirable as slower population growth might be from an environmental perspective, it is not desirable from an economic one, and especially not desirable from the perspective of educational institutions. Fewer children, fewer students.

    At the very least, it would be a bit paradoxical for higher ed institutions to court students (and their parents) while denigrating childbearing and parenting.

  • Good points, CTS
  • Posted by DFS on August 20, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • But coming from a purely market-driven perspective, where people compete for positions, how do we justify hiring equally qualified women versus men when one cannot count on the woman to not be "saddled" with her desire to become a mother?

    I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely doing the knee-jerk of -- hey, I'm a guy, and I won't get pregnant and take time away from those who provide my paycheck.

    Obviously, this must be settled culturally among us all. And any such settlement must be fair to everyone.

    I think it can (and should) be done.

  • Re: above misogyny
  • Posted by slk on September 9, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • "If the faculty are all white men who do the job better than anyone else, then I don't see a problem; just as I don't see a problem with nursing staff that are all women."
    - I simply can't get over how patronizing and condescending this statement is. Maybe women don't all want to be nurses; maybe some want to be doctors (of medicine or philosophy). And (I know this is a radical thought) maybe those women whom you will condescending allow to be nurses (i.e.: underpaid subordinates), would actually be better MDs or PhDs than their male counterparts. White men don't do the job better than anyone else. They are simply the only ones whom society conditions to expect that getting a top job is a right and not a privilege to be earned. With WMA professors with these type of attitudes as often the only academic mentors available to female undergrad and graduate students, no wonder all too often women feel that they have no hope of getting a top job. With your repeated comments, you've only provided a demonstration of the type of attitudes that have historically closed the higher reaches of academia to women.

    And by the way, the way you deal with those women getting pregnant, is you stop treating pregnancy like it only affects one gender. You give paternity leave as well as maternity leave, and by implementing family and partner-friendly programs, you actually make it possible for a woman to be a full professor and a mother. Fatherhood has never worked to disqualify men from being professors, simply because men have always been willing to dump the responsibilities inherent therein upon their wives. How many of the WMAs cited above, viruently protesting any percieved loss of their own professional authority, have considered it only fair for their wives' professional dreams to be completely eclipsed in the name of reproduction? However, as someone pointed out above, pregnancy has never prevented women from teaching K-12. K-12 simply deals with the fact that its employees are female, without believing that a set of functional genitalia disqualifies the possessor from fulfilling a job which they love and to which they are eminently qualified.