white

On June 1, Judith S. White became the new executive director of Higher Education Resource Services, known by the acronym HERS, which runs a series of leadership development programs for women in academe.

White, who held a series of administrative positions at Duke University, recently discussed her new position and the outlook for women in higher education.

Q:  What role do you see HERS playing nationally in helping women advance in higher education?

A: HERS has always been about offering training for women who want to advance and also about advocating on behalf of the gender and racial equity that are necessary for educational excellence. After 30 years of doing this work, HERS has nearly 4,000 alumnae from different programs and projects. They are in all sorts of institutions, many of them in the top leadership positions. Most of those women are already working hard on behalf of women and others who have been historically excluded or overlooked. One of my goals is to mobilize the HERS network to showcase what women have contributed, to offer models of best practices for advancing women, and to speak up about using those practices on their home campuses. In short, I'd like the HERS network to be a part of a movement of renewed advocacy for women.  

Q: You are leaving a position at Duke, where until recently a woman was president. What impact does a female president have on women in the administrative ranks?

A: Having a woman president is encouraging and affirming for all women affiliated with a woman-led institution. Duke students and alumnae -- as well as employees and faculty -- were very vocal about that. At the same time, a woman president often has to be very careful about how directly she takes up the issues of supporting women. Since people often confuse paying attention to women with "favoring" them, a woman president may be unfairly seen as caring only about women. Still, a woman president, unless she is really trying to avoid concerns of women, will see things that often men presidents do. And simply by understanding from their own experiences things that men will not, they do often make a difference in supporting small as well as large changes.

Q: What do you see as the main obstacles to women advancing in higher education?

A: Women in all fields still face gender bias and a workplace shaped by a strongly gendered history. Women are still seen by many as less capable and less committed than men. That notion is reinforced by the history of how men and women have been supported in the workplace. Men have been expected to "commit" to work with no distractions from the rest of their lives; indeed they have historically depended on women to do the work of "the rest of their lives." Women, on the other hand, have been relegated to jobs they could do while also being caretakers. Indeed women's "work" roles have often been seen as caretakers. Caretakers are seen as nice and necessary but not valuable and well-rewarded. That is still too often true in higher education.

Q:  The last six months has seen a broad public debate over women in science, prompted by the remarks of Larry Summers. Do you think the discussion will end up doing more good or harm?

A: It is unfortunate that a major university president had to say silly things in public in order to reveal to everyone the sort of silly things women have been hearing in private for so long. But that said, I think this public debate is a good thing. As a nation, we depend on the best, most creative people working in all fields; we have particular needs for the highest level of work in science, engineering, mathematics and medicine. This debate has made clear that we are now organized in higher education to discourage many of the best in these fields. I'm very happy to see that Harvard has made commitments to creating model programs for reversing the obstacles blocking women in science.

Q:  Are there institutions you consider models for advancing the careers of women, and why?
There are many institutions doing some very good things. Few manage to create the comprehensive set of changes that are necessary to transform the workplace. I think MIT deserves credit for responding quickly and quite broadly to the information revealed about their former bad practices. The study Nancy Hopkins and her colleagues did there has become a great model for making sure women have the academic resources they need to succeed. The University of California system is undertaking some comprehensive changes aimed at making parenting less of an obstacle for women and men on their faculties. I'm very proud of things the provost's office at Duke is doing for women faculty.  

I hesitate on this question for two reasons. First, it is not clear anyone is really focused on women employees. That is the largest group of women working on our campuses. Second, even focusing on women faculty and senior leadership, if we look at where women are filling the largest number of top positions -- full professors and presidents -- you have to look at community colleges. I think the latest ACE data indicates the percentage of women presidents there is three times the percentage of the research universities (22 percent vs. 7 percent). For me the next research agenda is finding out whether this is because community colleges are doing something really right for women. Or because women are just more willing -- more compelled -- than men to take the extra heavy workloads and manage the more limited resources that shaped the world of community colleges.   

Q: Are there particular policies that are widespread in academe that are holding back women?

A: The tenure-clock policies -- six years up or out -- work against the women faculty who try to combine work and family. Since tenured women faculty are the group most likely to advance into the senior leadership ranks -- to be presidents and chancellors or system heads -- these policies have wide impacts.  At the same time, the inflexibility shown in the tenure-clock policies also shapes the general climate on too many campuses. Working conditions are often just as rigid for women in administrative, technical, professional, clerical and service roles. Being available for family or community work, even on a limited basis, is seen as less "professional" at work. Because women are more likely to feel dual responsibilities -- on the job and off -- they pay the price of being held back. As I say in a piece I did for Liberal Education this winter, "we all need new pathways."