6Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering

Publication Details

While the number and proportion of women earning science and engineering degrees has increased dramatically, the need for additional focused steps to increase the representation of women in science and engineering faculties is obvious and persistent. Universities and colleges play central roles both in the education of scientists and engineers and in the conduct of research and development. Progress toward equality on their campuses is crucial if we are to optimize the productivity of the nation’s science and engineering enterprise.

ROOT CAUSES OF DISPARITIES

Making full use of the nation’s scientific and technical talent, regardless of the sex, social, and ethnic characteristics of the persons who possess it, will require both understanding of the causes of inequality and effective remedies.

Biological explanations for the dearth of women professors in science and engineering have not been confirmed by the preponderance of research (Chapter 2 ). Studies of brain structure and function, of hormonal modulation of performance, of human cognitive development, and of human evolution provide no significant evidence for biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in these fields. The dramatic increase in the number of women science and engineering PhDs over the last 30 years clearly refutes long-standing myths that women innately or inherently lack the qualities needed for success; obviously, no changes in innate abilities could occur in so short a time.1

Surveys of the definite postgraduate plans of science and engineering doctoral recipients show that similar proportions of women and men plan for a career in academe. As shown in Chapter 3, despite similar career aspirations, women have not been able to translate their success at earning science and engineering PhDs into academic careers equal to those attained by men.

Academe is purportedly a meritocracy that rewards objectively determined accomplishment. However, many studies document that both bias and structural barriers built into academic institutions and the occupation of professor limit many women’s ability to be hired and promoted in university faculties. In fact, the academy has perpetuated patterns of bias that devalue women and minorities and their abilities, aspirations, accomplishments, and roles. As described in Chapter 4, small but consistent differences in evaluation, often caused by gender bias, can have a sustained and substantial impact on career outcomes.

I have always believed that contemporary gender discrimination within universities is part reality and part perception, but I now understand that reality is by far the greater part of the balance.

—Chuck Vest, President, MIT2

A substantial body of research demonstrates that women are underrepresented at higher levels of business and academe because of the influence of gender schemas and the accumulation of disadvantage that such schemas generate.3 Gender schemas systematically influence both women and men’s perceptions and evaluations of competence and performance, and they cause women to be consistently underrated and men consistently overrated. Academic scientists and engineers show bias against women applying for grants, employment, and tenure. To achieve the same competence rating as a man, a woman must have a significantly superior record.4 Although most individual differences in treatment are typically quite subtle and seemingly small, these small but consistent advantages or disadvantages accumulate into significant discrepancies in salary, promotion, and prestige (Box 6-1).

Box Icon

BOX 6-1

Benefits of Presumed Competence. FOCUS ON RESEARCH Acquisition of human capital parallels the accumulation of advantage or disadvantage. Exposure to discrimination influences earnings and leads to inequalities in income across the career, particularly (more...)

In addition to bias, systematic structural constraints built into academic institutions have impeded the careers of women scientists.5 As documented in Chapter 5, organizational rules and structures may appear neutral on the surface but can function in a way that leads to differential treatment of or differential outcomes for men and women. One example is the effect on productivity of unequal access to institutional resources.6 Another is the assumption that faculty members have substantial spousal support. The evidence demonstrates that anyone lacking the work and family support provided by someone fulfilling the traditional role of wife is at a serious disadvantage in academe. Most faculty members no longer belong to households that fit that mold. In 2003, 64.4% of women and 83.5% of men tenured or tenure-track faculty were married; 42.2% of women and 50% of men faculty had at least one child in the household.7 About 90% of the spouses of science and engineering women faculty are employed full-time; almost half the spouses of male faculty also work fulltime (see Figures 5-2 and 5-3).8 Furthermore, even within today’s two-career households, women still shoulder a disproportionate share of responsibility for children and other dependents, which places a burden on women faculty members that their male colleagues ordinarily do not bear.

WHY CHANGE IS NECESSARY

This nation can no longer afford the underperformance of our academic institutions in attracting the best and brightest minds to the science and engineering enterprise. Nor can it afford to underappreciate or devalue the contributions of that workforce through gender inequities and discrimination. There are four compelling reasons for taking action to eliminate gender disparities and bias in science and engineering careers in academe and elsewhere.

  1. Global competitiveness. America’s technological advances, its standard of living, and ultimately its prosperity and security depend on global pre-eminence in science and engineering. Other countries are making strong gains emulating the successes of the United States by investing heavily in science and technology.9 To remain competitive in a fast-changing global economy, the United States needs to make optimal use of its scientific and engineering talent.
  2. Law. Our nation has strong anti-discrimination laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196410 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title IX, passed in 1972,11 prohibits discrimination or exclusion on the basis of sex from any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act of 1980 made “equal opportunity [for men and women] in education, training and employment in scientific and technical fields” the official policy of the United States.
  3. Economics. States, the federal government, and the private sector invest heavily in training scientists and engineers. The average annual support provided for a full-time doctoral student is about $50,000, not including research and training expenses.12 The average doctoral student takes about 7 years to complete the PhD,13 bringing the investment to $350,000 per PhD. That is a substantial cost. It makes no sense economically to have highly educated, expensive PhDs leave science and engineering because they perceive a lack of opportunity to excel.
  4. Ethics. Men and women should have an equal opportunity to serve society, work in rewarding jobs, and earn a living.

Until women can feel as much at home in math, science, and engineering as men, our nation will be considerably less than the sum of its parts. If we do not draw on the entire talent pool that is capable of making a contribution to science, the enterprise will inevitably be underperforming its potential.

—The Presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and Princeton University14

WHAT MUST BE DONE: A BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION

Career impediments for women deprive the nation of an important source of talented and accomplished scientists and engineers. Transforming institutional structures and processes to eliminate gender bias requires a major national effort, incorporating strong leadership and continuous attention, evaluation, and accountability. It will require persistent diligence and abiding patience.15 The committee’s recommendations are rooted in strategies shown to be successful. They are large-scale and interdependent, and require the combined efforts of university leaders and faculties, professional societies and higher education organizations, funding agencies, federal agencies, and Congress.

Attaining gender equity is a deep cultural problem, one that most scientists would like to see overcome, but one that is likely to persist unless active steps are taken to change the culture in which we live.

—Richard Zare, Chair, Chemistry Department, Stanford University16

Change Institutional Processes to Combat Bias

Faculty members and administrators at all levels need to correct or eliminate the policies and practices that lead to or permit gender bias. How should faculty interact with students? How should young women faculty deal with unwelcome social or sexual advances? How should faculty members work with staff? How should institutions and individuals interview and hire? What are effective, unbiased strategies for evaluating performance? A recent Harvard Task Force developed a comprehensive list of policy actions for improving the retention and advancement of women in science and engineering, across the educational and career path (Box 6-2).

Box Icon

BOX 6-2

The Harvard University Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering . DEFINING THE ISSUES “A diverse faculty is a strong faculty because it emerges from the broadest possible consideration of available talent.”

Many women faculty cite workplace climate as an important factor in career satisfaction and decisions about whether to pursue a career in academe.17 All too often, newly minted scientists begin their faculty positions with little or no training in effective strategies for running a laboratory, lacking even basic training and skills in writing and managing a budget, hiring and evaluating personnel, and conflict management. The dearth of training contributes in turn to some of the observed climate problems in the academic science workplace.18 In recent years, training strategies and programs have emerged to fill the void. Box 6-3 details an existing program that has proven effective at increasing the retention of women and men junior faculty.

Box Icon

BOX 6-3

Improving the Retention of Junior Faculty Case Study: Johns Hopkins Department of Medicine Task Force. EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES The Task Force on Women’s Academic Careers in Medicine at the Johns Hopkins Department of Medicine is a model for (more...)

Tenured faculty with management responsibilities—including department chairs, deans, and search committee chairs—would benefit from periodic workshops in which they examine ground rules and work to correct gender bias. Efforts should focus on providing mandatory workshops for deans, department heads, search committee chairs, grant reviewers, and other faculty with personnel evaluation and management responsibilities. The workshops should include an integrated component on diversity and the strategies needed to overcome bias and gender schemas. For example, the WISELI program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison convenes department heads for workshops on department climate (Box 6-4). Such forums provide an opportunity for general discussion of how to manage bias, and a vehicle for department leaders to exchange strategies and best practices.

Box Icon

BOX 6-4

Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute: Climate Workshops for Department Chairs. EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES Climate (Kli−’mi˘t), n. The atmosphere or ambience of an organization as perceived by its members. An (more...)

A recent national meeting of chemistry department chairs in collaboration with the major federal funders of academic chemistry research—the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health—is an example of an effective cross-institutional strategy (Box 6-5).

Box Icon

BOX 6-5

Building Strong Academic Chemistry Departments through Gender Equity . EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES In January 2006, 60 chemistry department chairs or senior leaders from the most active research universities convened with funding agency representatives (more...)

Create New Institutional Structures

Changing the “culture” of departments and institutions will not suffice to eliminate bias and institutional constraints on women’s careers unless institutions frankly confront and resolve the issues raised by child and family responsibilities. The traditional career model clearly does not take into account the life course of women scientists who wish to become parents, because it requires unbroken concentration on work during their peak reproductive years; indeed, the career interruption associated with motherhood has been identified as the most likely factor that keeps a woman with science or engineering training from pursuing or advancing in a scientific or technical career.19 Nor does the model take into account the needs of unmarried scientists—women and men—who have household, family, and community obligations without spousal support. It is a model that fits the lifestyle of an ever smaller group of people. It is urgent that academic norms and expectations be transformed so that the academy can continue to attract the very best people.

University faculty and leaders must develop and implement hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that take into account the flexibility that scientists need across the life course and that integrate family, work, and community responsibilities. They should provide central policies and funding for faculty and staff on leave and should visibly and vigorously support campus programs that help graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty with children or other caregiving responsibilities to maintain productive careers. Programs should include provisions for paid parental leave for faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and graduate students (Box 6-6); facilities (Box 5-10) and subsidies (Box 6-7) for on-site and community-based child care;20 dissertation defense and tenure clock extensions; modified duty schedules; lactation rooms; and family-friendly scheduling of critical meetings.

Box Icon

BOX 6-6

Stanford University’s Childbirth Policy for Female Graduate Students. EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES In acknowledgment of the conflict between the academic timeline and the prime childbearing years, and in an effort to increase the number of women (more...)

Box Icon

BOX 6-7

Financial Support for Dependent Care. EXPERIMENTS AND STRATEGIES Several successful strategies and programs exist in which students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty are able to receive financial support to cover expenses related to dependent child (more...)

As described in Chapter 5, the mere existence of apparently family-friendly policies will not reduce the pressure on women faculty or their fear that family life will damage or even destroy their careers. Rather, to reduce the conflict between work and family that faculty members experience, faculties and their Senates must examine tenure guidelines and ensure that committees appropriately evaluate candidates who have taken parental leave. In addition, university leaders, including top administrators and department chairs, must adopt policies that recognize and mitigate the disadvantages imposed by caregiving.21

Create Methods for Evaluation and Accountability

Academic institutions must work jointly with scientific and professional societies and federal agencies for lasting change to occur. All three sectors must provide leadership in equity, hold their constituents accountable for change, and provide clear measures and standards. Together, the three sectors can work to promote and ensure equity, increase the pool of talented scientists and engineers, and increase their integration into the nation’s economy (Box 6-8).

Box Icon

BOX 6-8

Scorecard for Evaluating How Well Research Universities Serve Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. TRACKING AND EVALUATION This scorecard should be used as a tool for continuous assessment of institutional efforts to remove the barriers (more...)

Coordinating Body

To help coordinate efforts between the actors, the assistance of an inter-institution monitoring organization body is crucial. An example of such an organization is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which works with its member institutions to set standards and review Title IX compliance.22 The NCAA has published an annual gender-equity report since 1992.23 The NCAA, established in 1906, is a voluntary organization through which the nation’s colleges and universities govern their athletic programs. It comprises more than 1,250 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals committed to the best interests, education, and athletic participation of student-athletes. The member colleges, universities, and conferences appoint volunteer representatives that serve on committees that introduce and vote on rules called bylaws. The members also establish programs to govern, promote, and further the purposes and goals of intercollegiate athletics.

National higher education organizations, including the American Council of Education (ACE), Association of American Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, through formation of an inter-institution monitoring body, could play a leading role in promoting equal treatment of women and men studying and working in our nation’s universities. Such a body could serve to recommend norms and measures, collect data, and track compliance and accountability across institutions. ACE is an umbrella organization encompassing all of higher education: degree-granting colleges, universities, and higher education-related associations, organizations, and corpora-tions.24 ACE, with its convening power and strong reputation for consensus-building, is the logical organization to take the initial step to convene higher education groups to discuss the creation of such a monitoring organization. A primary focus of the discussion should be on defining the scope and structure of data collection.

In addition, scientific and professional societies could serve in a role similar to that of the national governing bodies for sports25 and help to set professional and equity standards, collect and disseminate field-wide education and workforce data, and provide professional development training for members that include a component on bias in evaluation.

While opportunities for male and female athletes are an important issue, the possible implications of Title IX on educational opportunities for male and female college students have the potential of influencing many more students in a much more important manner. Access to high quality educational programs is more important from a policy standard point than whether one gets to play in intercollegiate soccer.

—James Monks, Department of Economics, University of Richmond26

Continuous Evaluation: Scorecard

Monitoring and evaluating progress toward gender equity in access to science and engineering education and academic careers require making appropriate measurements and comparisons. The committee has developed a proposed scorecard for measuring many of the factors relevant to equity, including climate, or “intangible” environment (see Box 6-8). The committee recommends that universities monitor their programs through annual self-audits that collect data on the education and employment of scientists and engineers disaggregated by sex and race or ethnicity. The recommended audits should be part of a larger effort to establish metrics for gender equity in academic science and engineering. Coordinating organizations should act to create uniform standards among their members and provide a central clearinghouse for publication of the results.

Federal Standards and Compliance Issues

Relevant civil rights statutes include Title IX (see Box 6-9), Title VI for students, and Title VII and Executive Order 11246 for faculty and employees. Together those laws bar discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and disability.27 The federal agencies should work with higher education institutions to establish clear guidelines and measures for compliance with all civil rights statutes.

Box Icon

BOX 6-9

Title IX. DEFINING THE ISSUES Title IX bans sex discrimination in education and covers (a) students, faculty, and employees at institutions of higher education that receive federal funds and (b) students and employees of educational programs that are (more...)

Civil rights statutes cover every aspect of student education and faculty employment. For students, these statutes cover recruitment, admission to undergraduate programs (at a minimum at public institutions), admission to graduate programs, housing arrangements, scholarships and fellowships, internships and work-study opportunities, assignment to classes, assignment of advisers, selection for teaching assistantships, and “intangible” environment.

For faculty and employees the statutes bar discrimination based on sex, race, and national origin in all aspects of employment in educational institutions and programs, including recruitment; hiring; selection of graduate fellowships or teaching assistantships if these create an employer-employee relationship; promotion; tenure; termination; allocation of resources, such as laboratory space, research assistants, and research funding; receipt of awards and opportunities for public recognition; terms and conditions of employment, including leave, benefits, teaching load, availability of sabbaticals, appointments as department chairs, selection for research projects, committee assignments, and office location; and “intangible” environment.

Sanctions

The current stated sanction for noncompliance with federal statutes is retraction of federal funds or cancellation of federal contracts. What the NCAA has done with regard to Title IX compliance is create an intermediate sanction to precede such action: withdrawal from competition of a member organization found to be in noncompliance. There are no analogous science and engineering “teams,” however, an option that could be considered by the NCAA-like organization is withdrawal of an institution’s ability to compete for federal funds for a given period. The pressure of civil rights enforcement tends to be indirect: institutions change behavior not because of the threat of sanctions, but rather because the law cultivates a normative environment that legitimates and motivates compliance.28

Possible Unintended Consequences

Some have argued that Title IX as applied to athletics has led to the elimination of men’s sports teams in favor of women’s teams. However, it appears that institutions are more likely to add female teams and female athletes than to cut male teams and reduce the number of male athletes in response to a finding of noncompliance.29 A more common strategy used by institutions that are out of compliance with the proportionality standard is to provide preference to men in college admissions, and thereby establish a lower proportion of female students.30 That has the obvious effect of exacerbating imbalances between men and women and should be carefully considered in the crafting of standards for evaluation and compliance in science and engineering.

CALL TO ACTION

“Institutions of higher education have an obligation, both for themselves and for the nation, to develop and utilize fully all the creative talent available.”

—Nine-University Statement on Gender Equity, 200531

America’s competitiveness in today’s global economy depends on fully developing and using all the nation’s scientific and engineering talent. However, substantial barriers still exist to the full participation of women, not only in science and engineering, but also in other academic fields throughout higher education.

That women are capable of contributing to the nation’s scientific and engineering enterprise but are impeded in doing so because of gender and racial or ethnic bias and outmoded “rules” governing academic success is a call to action. Creating environments that promote the professional success of all people, regardless of their sex, race, or ethnicity, must be a top priority for all institutions and individuals concerned with maintaining and advancing the nation’s scientific and engineering enterprise.

Transforming academic institutions so that they will foster the career advancement of women scientists and engineers at all levels of their faculties is a complex task of identifying and eliminating institutional barriers. Individual institutional efforts have had dramatic effects but sustained change across higher education is unlikely unless there is a transformation of the process by which students and faculty are educated, trained, recruited, evaluated, tenured, and retained.

Our analysis shows that policy changes are sustainable only if they create a “new normal,” a new way of doing things. Increasing the number of women and underrepresented minority-group faculty substantially will require leadership from faculty, individual departments, and schools; rigorous oversight from provosts and presidents; and sustained normative pressure from external sources. The first step is to understand that women are as capable as men of contributing to the science and engineering enterprise. Second, the science and engineering community needs to come to terms with the biases and structures that impede women in realizing their potential. Finally, the community needs to work together, across departments, through professional societies, and with funders and federal agencies to bring about gender equity.

BOX 6-10Elephants in the Rooma

DEFINING THE ISSUES

I’m going to offer you a set of recommendations that will cost you nothing but courage. They can also be used more broadly well beyond the hallowed halls, and thus impact the “cross-institutional interlock,” or as I would say as an electrical engineer, “the system.”

  • First of all, we should have zero tolerance for bullying behavior. It should not be acceptable in the workplace or anywhere else. If you are an academic leader, you should confront faculty and others who are abusive to students, staff, and other faculty, particularly senior faculty.
  • Tenure is not a license to kill. How many of you have seen on an academic campus, senior people with tenure over and over abuse people who are lower than them in the power structure, and nobody ever does anything? Why does that happen? Why do we let that happen? It’s unacceptable.
  • If you have issues with dealing with conflict and you are an academic leader, take a class. Get help. Seek support. It’s not so difficult. We are conflict avoiders in the academy. People don’t want to confront each other, but we have to. It’s our job. It’s in the position description. We can learn from conflict. We do learn from conflict.
  • Confront people’s biases.
  • Support your local senior feminist colleagues, male and female. It’s lonely at the top. Support them in their endeavors for social justice.

We must confront and act on these “elephants in the room”b as much as we must also change recruitment processes, become more family-friendly, ensure presence of role models, create new models for evaluation and promotion, and revamp the academic salary structure for staff and faculty.

a

Closing comments by Denice Denton, National Academies’ Convocation on Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success, December 9, 2005, Washington, DC.

b

“Elephants in the room” is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored, for various reasons. It is based on the ironic fact that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to ignore. It sometimes is used to refer to a question or problem that very obviously stands to reason, but which is ignored for the convenience of one or more involved parties. The idiom also implies a value judgment that the issue should be discussed openly. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room .

The current situation is untenable and unacceptable. We must unite to ensure that all of our nation’s people are welcomed and encouraged to excel in science and engineering at our colleges and universities.

Our nation’s future depends on it.

Footnotes

1
2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 11(4), http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html.

3

V Valian (1998). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

4

C Wennerås and A Wold (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387:341-343; R Steinpreis, KS Anders, and D Ritzke (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curriculum vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7-8):509-528; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 11(4), http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html.

5

For example, see J Jacobs and S Winslow (2004). The academic life course: Time pressures and gender inequality. Community, Work and Family 7(2):143-161; B Baginole (1993). How to keep a good woman down: An investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. British Journal of Sociology of Education 14(3):261-274.

6

RK Merton (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science 158:56-63; P Allison and JS Long (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review 55:469-478; B Keith, JS Layne, N Babchuk, and K Johnson (2002). The context of scientific achievement: Sex status, organizational environments, and the timing of publication on scholarship outcomes. Social Forces 80(4):1253-1282; Y Xie and KA Shauman (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 63:847-870.

7

National Science Foundation (2003). Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Data provided by Joan Burrelli, Division of Science Resource Statistics.

8

The National Science Foundation has compiled a table on marital status and spousal employment for men and women scientists and engineers in 2001, see http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/employ.htm, Table H-31.

9

See NAS/NAE/IOM (2007). Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

10

Pub. L. 88-352. For a full description, see http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html.

11

Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688. See http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm.

12

In 2001, the average annual stipend support was $37,234, and tuition and fees were $8,070. Overheads on federal grants help to support health benefits. The numbers do not include the amount invested in research or teaching. Data from National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003060). Washington, DC: US Department of Education Statistics.

13

National Science Board (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006 (NSB 06-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Figure 2-27 and Appendix Table 2-34.

14
15

JH Franklin (2005). Mirror to America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

16

R Zare (2006). Sex, lies, and Title IX. Chemical and Engineering News 84(2):46-49, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/education/84/8420education.html.

17

For example, see LLB Barnes, MO Agago, and WT Coombs (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty intention to leave academia. Research in Higher Education 39(4):457-469; P Bronstein and L Farnsworth (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education 39(5):557-585; LS Hagedorn (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research 105:5-20; MF Fox and P Stephan (2001). Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects and realities by gender and field. Social Studies of Science 31(1):109-122; CA Trower and RP Chait (2002). Faculty diversity. Harvard Magazine, http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030218.html;L August and J Waltman (2004). Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education 45(2):177-192.

18

ER Rice and AE Austin (1988). Faculty morale: What exemplary colleges do right. Change 20(3):51-58; WM Plater (1995). Future work: Faculty time in the 21st century. Change 27(3):22-33; VJ Rosser (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education 45(3):285-309.

19

Y Xie and KA Shauman (2003). Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; D Ginther (2006). The economics of gender differences in employment outcomes in academia. In Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success for Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; MA Mason and M Goulden (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals AAPSS 596:86-103.

20

This was discussed as early as 1988 by Carl Djerassi. See FM Hechinger (1988). About education. New York Times B11(November 9).

21

K Ward and L Wolf-Wendel (2004). Fear factor: How safe is it to make time for family? Academe 90(6), http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2004/04nd/04ndward.htm.

22

The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education is responsible for enforcement.

23
24

ACE has over 1,800 member institutions and organizations. Among the over 100 national member organizations that are members of ACE are the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of University Professors, American Chemical Society, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of American Universities, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, National Association of College and University Business Officers, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

25
26

J Monks (2005). Title IX Compliance and Preference for Men in College Admission (Working Paper 80). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp80.pdf.

27

There are distinct enforcement agencies for each statute. Title VI and Title VII are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates and resolves discrimination complaints and can bring lawsuits on behalf of claimants. Individual commissioners may also file charges to initiate investigations of discrimination even absent a specific complaint. Executive Order 11246 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the Department of Labor, which has the authority to resolve complaints and undertake compliance reviews of federal contractors. Overall, the Department of Justice acts in a coordinating role to enforce the statutes.

28

WT Bielby (2000). Minimizing workplace gender and racial bias. Contemporary Sociology 29:120-129; B Reskin (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology 29(2):319-328; S Strum (2001). Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review 101(3):458-568; E Hirsh (2006) Enforcing Equal Opportunity: The Impact of Discrimination Charges on Sex and Race Segregation in the Workplace (Working Paper). Department of Sociology, University of Washington.

29

DJ Anderson and JJ Cheslock (2004). Institutional strategies to achieve gender equity in intercollegiate athletics: Does Title IX harm male athletes? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 94(2):307-311.

30

J Monks (2005). Title IX Compliance and Preference for Men in College Admission (Working Paper 80). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp80.pdf.

31

Nine-University Statement on Gender Equity (2006), http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/12/06_geneq.shtml.

Image p20012271g172001
Image p20012271g173001