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

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

Salary Equity: Problems, Solutions

A federal appeals court has granted a group of 40 white male professors the right to a jury trial for reverse discrimination. The December 11 Chronicle of Higher Education reports that a 1993 study at Northern Arizona University had shown pay inequities. These were remedied by a one-time raise. In 1995, a group of white male and female professors filed suit against the university president on the grounds of pay discrimination: the men because they did not receive any raises, the women because their raises were lower than those of their minority male counterparts. A subgroup of 40 male professors also filed suit against the university, claiming reverse discrimination because raises were given to female and minority faculty members. Appeals for the two suits were considered together, and the suit brought by the larger group was dismissed.

The Northern Arizona case is not the first to allege reverse discrimination in response to a university´s attempt to rectify past pay inequities. An article in the July­August 2001 issue of Academe describes similar cases as part of a discussion of academic salary inequity in the context of the law, cases, and possible causes. It gives a review of individual and class-action suits, some of which have been featured in previous WAGE Newsletters. However, "Litigation should be a last resort. Legal battles over salary equity are extremely expensive and time consuming, and they often yield mixed results." Careful salary equity studies and good practices in promotion and payment are recommended. Institutions should consider the following:

• Establish starting salaries.
• Conduct periodic salary-equity studies.
• Conduct periodic promotion-equity studies.
• Provide briefings on salary practices for new faculty.
• Offer "salary-setting" seminars.
• Create equitable merit-pay systems.
• Establish inclusive eligibility criteria for equity adjustments.

This last recommendation may be among the most difficult for any university to implement. Not only does implementation depend on the willingness of those in power, but, like clear criteria for tenure (see Collegiality), clear criteria for payment may depend on reinvestigation of the roles of teaching, research, and service. However, such an effort seems worthwhile. In addition to reducing the likelihood of reverse discrimination lawsuits, clear criteria could reduce discrepancies between what administrators say about university goals and what faculty members do. Moreover, all faculty members‹male and female, White and non-White‹might be motivated to develop such criteria.

How to rectify salary inequity may soon be of interest to UC. The State Audit of UC Hiring recommends that "UC should periodically perform summary-level salary monitoring to identify patterns that may indicate that female professors are receiving lower salaries than their male counterparts and investigate any such instances to ensure that inconsistent treatment does not occur."

Monitoring has begun. Jackie Speier reported in her keynote address at the Summit on Faculty Gender Equity in November:
The results were that for fiscal years 1997-98 through 2000-01:

• women at the assistant level were paid 90.2% of what men earned;
• women at the associate level earned 97.3% of what men earned;
• and at the full professor level, women earned 87.3% of what men earned.

-wage@wage.org-