You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Hearing on UC Faculty Hiring
"dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good"
by Charity Hirsch In February
State Senator Jackie Speier chaired a third hearing on gender disparity in UC faculty hiring. Senator Speier initiated the audit that showed a drop in the hiring of women in the late 1990s (see Spring 2001 Newsletter). This drop occurred after Proposition 209 passed, although the University was (and is) still subject to federal law, including affirmative action. Since the audit, hiring statistics have improved. Some highlights of the hearing follow.
President Atkinson reported that in 1999-00 25% of new faculty hires were women, in 2000-01 it was 30% and 2001-02 it was 31.2%. Although this is still less than the percent hired before Proposition 209 (37% in 1993-94 and 36% in 1995-96) it gives one cause to hope. I was convinced that President Atkinson was genuine in his concern; he mentioned having a daughter who is a neurosurgeon. Those of us who know of Frances Conley´s experiences as a neurosurgeon on the Stanford faculty, might suspect that Atkinson is aware of the problems of discrimination against women in medicine. However, he has left the UC Presidency and one does not know what his replacement´s concerns will be.
Documents distributed at the hearing described many new procedures and systems that have been instituted to try to improve the climate for women, and to try to assure equity in hiring and promotion. But, as Atkinson said in his testimony, "policies and procedures are only as good as the results." Although the percent of female faculty hires in the UC system increased, this was caused by improvements at some campuses that outweighed drops at others.
The two worst campuses were UCLA and UCI (where WAGE originated). At UCI, women were 28% of faculty hires and 21% of hires without tenureb
and the lowest non-tenured rank is where the pool of women is largest! Women were 20% of all UCLA faculty hires and 21% of hires without tenure. Because of these poor statistics, Senator Speier said that she plans to visit these campuses.
Professor Angelica Stacy testified on UCB´s hiring. Although in 2001-02, UCB hired 32% women, its math department had not hired one woman in the past ten years and chemistry and physics not many more. Even with well-intentioned top administrators, departments can still successfully defy the law in regard to opportunities for women.
Professor Gyongy Laky noted that the situation we have now is affirmative action for men and discrimination against women. Because much of the present faculty is retiring and because UC is expanding, this is a critical period in hiring. If the present level of affirmative action for men continues for ten years, there will be a new tenured overwhelmingly male faculty that will not retire for many years to come.
Professor Martha West confirmed President Atkinson´s concerns about the results of procedural and policy changes; faculty members don´t know of these changes, or may not care to recognize them. She urged the information about changes be more available and the statistics on results, likewise.
UCSD´s Gender Equity Task Force reported that women are only 18% of the UCSD faculty (the lowest percent of all UC schools). Women´s basic salary is 5.6% less than men´s, their total salary is 12.5% less (medical schools especially pay more than the basic salary), and they are more likely to leave.
Professor Martha MeCartney reported that UCI´s math department has no tenure-track women. Statistics on hires of women were not available to her. (I wonder how President Atkinson got the statistics for Irvine if they were not available. I suspect they are available but aren´t good so the administration is only letting out what it is forced to let out.)
Professor Pauline Yahr reported on pay inequalities at UCI; of 44 faculty members who were paid above scale, 43 were men. The policy of requiring faculty members to request a pay review to equalize their pay is not effective as faculty members fear a backlash if they request this. Female faculty members are asked to monitor problems which puts the women in the position of policing their peers, an unappetizing role.
Professor Susan Prager of UCLA suggested that since hiring of women decreased with Proposition 209 in spite of the fact that the federal law requiring affirmative action in hiring is unchanged, the state legislature consider passing a clarifying piece of legislation to use to educate the faculty.
Over and over, witnesses stressed the importance of having top administration officials determined to bring about change and with the power to hold deans and chairs accountable for the hiring practices of their faculty. Suggestions were that success or failure should be assessed more frequently and should affect both the careers of deans and chairs, and the budgets of their departments. I noticed that no mention was made of the problems experienced by the individual faculty women who are the subject of discrimination. When they complain of discrimination or sue because they have been unfairly treated, they feel the might of the UC Office of the President General Counsel (OPUC GC) brought to bear against them. This is an important point. The lack of support for these women discourages other women from complaining of discrimination. It also frequently destroys the complainant´s academic careerb
the old boy network is not just a UC phenomenon, but pervades the power structure of academia. As long as the few brave women who sue for tenure or ask for a salary review get destroyed or isolated you have a climate that is unfriendly to women. Perhaps the UCOP GC should consider doing as the military do: supplying the complainant with the same legal support they supply to the defendant, UC. Perhaps the UCOP GC should devote serious effort to educating deans and chairs on discrimination law. Back when WAGE was receiving reports on the cost of tenure discrimination cases
(see Fall 1999 Newsletter) we found large sums being spent by the UCOP GC to support discrimination. How about spending something comparable to prevent discrimination?
-wage@wage.org-