You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
So That´s How They Do It #4
by Charity Hirsch
Long-time WAGE members may remember some of the techniques of discrimination we´ve found (see
the Fall 1994,
Fall 1995,
Fall 1996 Newsletters).
There´s the "white male shield"
(a male is hired and not promoted at
the same time a female is hired and not promoted so the university
can argue that the woman is not singled out), letters soliciting evaluations
which are very different for female candidates, female "candidates"
who are interviewed for positions already promised to a male ... Another technique, exemplified in the following story, might be called "the catch-22."
This is the story of a woman who was hired at a new department.
Because the department also had a new graduate program,
the service load was very high with new graduate and
undergraduate curricula to be developed, new courses prepared,
new committees to be formed, etc.
The woman was assigned a disproportionate amount of service and --
unlike some non-tenured male faculty membership
was expected to complete the assignments. Male faculty members who
refused or failed to work on service assignments were not penalized.
In fact, these men were indirectly rewarded for their behavior
because they had more time for research.
The woman´s service assignments gained her neither status
nor financial reward --
yet it was made clear to her that she had to be a "team player" and help build the department. When she expressed concern that this work was impinging on her research time, she was told not to worry, the administration understood that faculty members in this department were expected to devote time to institution building.
In addition to this disproportionate service requirement,
she was directed by her department to change the focus of her research.
She did so and managed to publish her new work. However the service
load and the change in research created a gap in her publication record.
When her tenure review took place, although the department voted
unanimously in her favor, a college committee and the administration
concluded she had made a publication push only to get tenure and that
her work was no longer "focused." She was denied promotion
despite the fact that her file was as strong or stronger than those
of the previous two faculty members (both male) tenured in the
department. The rationale for this decision?:
A push by the administration to have the university recognized
as a Research I institution had led to an increase in expectations
for tenure. The department has offered as comfort the idea that
because the department is now functional, no other junior faculty
member will get caught in this particular catch-22.
I can´t help but wonder if they would have used a male junior faculty member this way and expected him to be gratified to learn that the sacrifice of his career had spared another´s!
What can one do to prevent this kind of exploitation? I doubt the chair or dean or whoever asks you to do such institutional work would appreciate your asking for a contract that states that because you are doing work for the department you are entitled to promotion, or that such work counts as papers published. But, perhaps, after a "suggestion" that you change fields, do unusual amounts of administrative work, whatever, you should write a letter to your chair confirming your understanding of what you have been asked to do, the fact that doing it will slow your production of publishable research, and in compensation this work will count as papers published. It might not keep you from being denied tenure, but it might give you a weapon when you take your case to court.
-wage@wage.org-