Goals and Quotas--the Beauty of Quantitation
In these days of centrist to rightist politics, when even liberals have to whisper the words, no one advocates for target counts or quotas for women. I do, though. I believe what we need is a new round of at least goals, if not quotas, for participation of women in science. My rationale is partly based on Finland, a country I've mentioned before. They instituted quotas for women's participation on boards that run academia and industry, and they are the most conspicuous country with no scissors curve: women are full participants all the way up the academic ranks. My rationale is also based on diversity goals my own institution adopted when I was VP, and has worked to fulfill ever since.
And then, I read on Isis the scientist the other day that AWIS came into existence at a time when the NIH Study Sections were about 1% women, and AWIS sued to stop the process until the participation by women was increased. The suit was settled out of court and women jumped to about 20% of study sections, and remained there to this day. is that enough today? When almost half of the graduates with PhDs in health related fields are women? Why hasn't the percentage gone up? Want to guess? No lawsuit!
So where would I put in quotas? First, I would put them in processes that are barriers for women and are confidential. I mean every kind of process from research paper review boards and search committees, to award committees, and all the way up to the National Academy of Sciences(NAS). Remember my earlier post and our chat about NAS elections, and how they wouldn't say what percentage of women they had? For a compelling visual representation of these data, AWIS provides a handy graph of NAS elections representing 1994-2009 (under the "data" tab), which I reposted here. It shows the AWIS analysis of NAS elections, sorrted by gender, from 1994-2009 (16 years of bad luck?).
"Confidential" processes like the ones at NAS are the refuge of the sexist thinking that holds women back. If a larger portion of those voting their secret inclinations were women, I think it would help, just as studies show businesses with more women in leadership positions are more woman-friendly. It would also help if people didn't have confidential processes for these selections.
Change is needed, in my opinion.
What do you think?
A. I don't like goals or quotas in numerical terms; I'd rather require a goal to "increase women's participation."
B. I really hate this idea. Talking and workshops and activities that show bias are much better than numerical requirements.
C. Yes, goals or quotas have helped in the past and they are needed again.
D. None of the above (what would be better?)
Hi For Creativity,
Ah, yes. Many years ago when I was dean I tried to get this spousal postdoc for all of Claremont program to happen, but in the Claremont Deans' Council, I was voted down, with only one other Dean in agreement. Guess what, she was a female dean!
cheers,
Laura
Maybe Pomona should get together with the other Claremont Colleges to try to do spousal position creation. You guys could have a few research faculty slots for use in this way; I'll bet you could even get them endowed!
I guess I wouldn't be unlikely to want women to rise to the top again. I'd just be more worried whether we could convince them to come. No good strategy to address it though. I know big univerities can often create a job for the spouse, but at tiny Pomona I just can't do that.
Sigh.
cheers,
Laura
I'm sorry that was the outcome of your search. Those experience do give me some added perspective when I talk to the "guys" who've been doing this and suffering the same disappointments for 20+ years as to why they become jaded! Ain't age/wisdom grand!
I know what you mean, hmcbride. We were turned down by the top two in our search, both women, because their significant others couldn't find positions nearby. The third in line was a man and he took it. I am sad that we worked so hard and found good women but couldn't hire them.
I think you're right Laura that it's tough to get people to think about the big picture during the hiring process. It takes so much time and energy to go through the interviews and sometimes second interviews, knowing all along that some of the applicants are not serious about the position if offered. So it becomes easier to think about giving the position to a man who is less likely to say no if his wife won't be able to find work in a certain area for example. Once you've been burned (I have by two women in my group who left for their significant others) it's tough to be objective even when you know what's at stake! I can well imagine what the male hiring managers go through in trying to keep a balanced perspective when there are plenty of men out there willing to "do whatever it takes". It's a heady mixture when you're the boss.
Dear Small Science Woman,
I hope you are right, but it hasn't been my experience in liberal arts colleges. It's always easy for men to try to redefine the job to fit their favorite candidate (male) unless there is some kind of definite pressure from the Administration to prove they've tried to get high quality diversity and haven't redefined the job after it was advertised. If there is no numerical goal, it's all just talk with no teeth.
cheers,
Laura
A In liberal arts colleges, I don't know if we need to use actual numbers. If the faculty adopts a policy to try to increase women profs (let's say in STEM fields) then they usually will try, with or without quotas, in my experience. But then, how do they treat them once they arrive?? Not so well, in physical sciences.
I'm definitely convinced, now, that quotas and goals do help. When I was VP at Pomona College, several lawyers consulted with us on setting goals. They tended to say it was a bad idea, but when asked for legal precedents, they had to admit there weren't any, it was just their own projection of what might be "safest" for the college. I tended to reject these recommendations. But my successors are much less likely to do that. I must say I'm also thinking more and more about how much lawsuits help. Women don't seem to be using that strategy much any more (maybe because of the economy? or maybe the courts are less friendly?)
cheers,
Laura
C. I'm with your and Female Science Professor. I used to feel as dubious did back when I was a grad student. Me here because of a quote, no way! But now that I've seen the detrimental effects on climate from not having women in decision making positions, we need C again. The current push to apply Title IX to the sciences is one place we could begin. And lawsuits are powerful in this risk aversive world of ours. I know we want to "all get along", but some rabid feminism wouldn't be uncalled for...from time to time:)
B quotas just make it that much easier for men to say I'm only here because someone had to choose a woman. I hate that more than anything else.
I used to hate goals and quotas because I thought people would just fill them and then stop trying. Hah! They didn't fill them and then stopped trying. But at least when they were newly adopted people made an effort to get more good women in recruitment pools, etc. Older and wiser or something, I think I'm on your side now, Laura. FSP
