You can go to our Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:

Text to Search For:
Boolean: AND OR Case Insensitive Sensitive

California State Audit of UC Hiring
Plummet in Women Faculty Hired at UC since 1995
by Rickey Hendricks

In 1995, the UC Regents banned affirmative action in hiring and California voters passed Proposition 206. The next year, faculty hires of women were down 10 percent. Women represented only 26% of new faculty hires in the 1998­99 academic year, and only 24% in 1999­00. In contrast, women were 36% of faculty hires in 1995­96.

Gender parity in hiring is defined by comparing the percentage of women in the available pool for hiring and the percentage of women hired. We see that in the last two years the percentage of female faculty hired at UC was slightly more than half of the corresponding percentage for recent Ph.D.s. This is according to an official state audit of UC requested by Senator Jackie Speier, completed in May 2001 (see Spring 2001 Newsletter).

After reading the Auditor´s Report, I wonder how long UC can deny the regressive attitudes toward academic women that still reside in hundreds of the 600 UC departments? Some officials have spent taxpayers´ money to defend the results of discriminatory procedures in many departments, giving women academics the choice of not fighting or possible bankruptcy. Meanwhile, little effort has been made to increase the percentage of women on the faculty by improving hiring and tenure procedures.

According to federal regulations, each campus must develop good-faith efforts in a hiring plan to achieve gender parity. It appears that UC has failed this directive. I wonder, then, if it also fails federal funding standards?

The 115-page State Auditor´s Report lists sixteen procedural factors in the gender disparity that still prevailed in the academic year 1999­2000. An astounding number of departments had no women, or only one woman, on their search committees. Committees for 156 hires, nearly two-thirds of the 242 hires reviewed by the Auditor, included either no women on the committee, or only one woman. In contrast only nine committees did not have any men. The Report states, "Some committees did not use data regarding the proportion of women in the labor pool when they planned searches." Using neither the data nor developing a strategy for achieving the goal of parity were two factors that reduced the percentage of women in the labor pool from the 46% estimated by the Audit to only 33%. The proportion hired between 1996 and 1999 was even smaller: 29%.

The Auditor´s Report identified specific areas of concern, including 16 recommendations to set good-faith parity goals and begin to achieve them. These include:

• Avoid all- or predominantly-male search committees.
• Require search committees "to incorporate data in their search plans on the extent to which women are available in the labor pool, and plan searches accordingly," extending outreach.
• Consider levels and specialized fields of study that now overwhelmingly favor men. Of all hires, 65% were for full professor. The proportion of women in the labor pool for these positions was only 32%.
• Likewise, fields of specialization chosen for new hires tend to favor men. Whenever possible, new hires should be at the Assistant and Associate levels and in specialties with a significant number of women recruits.
• Finally, international candidates represent about 10% of new hires in the statewide university system. Combined with UC search procedures, this further inhibits the likelihood of hiring women.

While the UC Berkeley Chancellor´s Office agrees that by federal law the University must address the reported disparities, the Chancellor also stated: "the decisions made with regard to hiring faculty are perhaps the single most important exercise of academic judgment by our faculty and academic administration." He might have added, "who are overwhelmingly male."

The Report also stated that "the average starting salaries for female professors ranged from 90% to 92% of the starting salaries for male professors " during the five years reviewed. Here the Report let the University off the hook. It stated ambiguously that individual departments have great discretion in regard to salaries offered to candidates, and that "factors other than gender may cause the difference." An educated observer might suspect that factors causing salary disparities are similar to those causing hiring disparities.

However, the Auditor´s Report has provided valuable information and recommendations regarding UC faculty hires. WAGE is deeply grateful to Senator Speier for sponsoring the legislation that led to the Audit and for her continued interest in the problem of UC faculty hiring.

-wage@wage.org-