Covert Discrimination And Women In The Sciences

Judith A. Ramaley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429727368
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The process of achieving equal opportunity for professional advancement involves not only legal issues but also psychological and social ones. This book deals with the barriers that can hinder professional development, discussed in the context of women in the sciences. Five issues are raised. First, what behavior constitutes discrimination, how is

1
The Individual and the Institution

Elske v.P. Smith

Definitions

Covert discrimination – the phrase must be defined before we can discuss it. My definitions may well differ from another’s, so it is important at the outset to clarify my interpretation. I use the plural definitions advisedly, for there are several categories of “discrimination”, or adverse actions and attitudes, that pertain.

Covert discrimination may be consciously hidden discrimination, hidden from the scrutiny of offices or agencies charged with ensuring that there is no discrimination. Since laws abound forbidding discrimination, most remnant extant discrimination is almost by necessity covert. Such hidden discrimination is malicious in being surreptitious and intentional, concealed only in the sense of not being obvious to the casual observer, perhaps not even to the victim, at least at first.

Far more general, but often equally or even more insidious, is an unconscious discrimination often manifested by attitudes rather than acts. Such attitudes can and do result in adverse actions and situations. This subconscious discrimination, in fact, is usually quite unintentional. Occasionally male colleagues or superiors with the best intentions and whose “hearts are in the right place” are guilty of this unconscious discrimination. The attitudes and perceptions of women themselves often contribute to discrimination. It is my hope that this paper will help to raise the consciousness of some of these persons.

Thirdly, there is widespread covert discrimination due to marital status – the femme couverte. One of the definitions of covert given in Webster’s is “of a woman; married and under cover, authority or protection of the husband” (1). One may, in fact, question whether the effects of marital and family status are strictly discrimination. Often they result from a conscious choice on the part of the woman. In other cases, however, true discrimination occurs, either in the initial academic or other appointment (or lack of it!), or in the later or prolonged effects.

These three aspects of covert discrimination are too intertwined to discuss independently of one another. Given a particular discrimination event or situation, it may not be possible to categorize it uniquely.

Background and Purpose of Paper

There may well be those who question my qualifications to discuss the subject of discrimination. I am a natural scientist, not a social scientist, and for that reason I was somewhat reluctant to accept the invitation. Nevertheless, I did accept the invitation, and as a result my own consciousness as to what constitutes discrimination has been considerably elevated.

As credentials, I cite the fact that I am a Professor of Astronomy, as well as Assistant Provost of the Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Engineering at a major state university. Hence I have research, teaching and administrative experience. As Assistant Provost, my duties include those of Human Relations or Equity Officer (the name keeps changing!), for the Division. Thus, I am deeply involved with affirmative action. Recently I chaired a committee to assess the Affirmative Action Program in a particular department.

In addition to researching the literature and drawing on my own observations and experiences, I wrote to a substantial number of women scientists asking them to share their experiences and perceptions concerning discrimination. The responses have been gratifyingly complete, and the letters were nearly always interesting, occasionally poignant. Over forty persons answered, some sent additional materials. Although the majority of the respondents are astronomers, the fields of mathematics, physics, biology, meteorology, chemistry and geology were also represented. The letters I received are largely confidential, hence it is not always possible to cite references or document assertions. Statements are used or cited anonymously in as far as they seemed pertinent and symptomatic. Many of my remarks pertain to all women professionals, especially those in academia, but by and large I have tried to narrow my considerations to women in the natural sciences. I wish to make it quite clear that although I have drawn from my observations and from what has been relayed to me by colleagues at my own university, the situations I cite are seldom unique to a given institution. Most respondents are at universities or agencies other than my own.

I believe I can present a balanced point of view, because I myself have only rarely been subjected to discrimination, and therefore do not appear as a strident or bitter advocate. That I could be “balanced” has been challenged on the grounds that I am so obviously part of the establishment. Indeed, I am very much a member of the establishment; for example, I have played key roles in the hiring and promotion of colleagues (mostly male!). But that experience has given me more perspective on the considerations involved in promotion. I am sometimes surprised at the naivete shown by younger colleagues, both male and female.

I am aware that upon occasion I have been guilty of the Queen Bee syndrome: “I’ve made it, so anyone else can too as long as she has sufficient drive, etc.”. More often, however, I have wondered, “Why me? – why have I been so fortunate?”. There are many women colleagues whom I believe to be more professionally competent than I, yet who have not achieved the same professional status. Realistically, it is probably correct that the same question can be raised by many “successful” men. For every successful man, there are several in dead-end jobs who just did not happen to be at the right place at the right time. It is the proportion, however, that differs, for a far higher fraction of women are “out” than “in”(2).

It has not been my intent to compile statistics; a substantial number of statistical studies already exist(3). Rather, it is my aim to discuss some of the issues involved in academic appointments and promotions, the attitudes that are encountered, and some of the effects of Affirmative Action. Inevitably, much of what I have to say is not new or original with me, but nevertheless bears repeating here.

To Hire, or Not to Hire – and at What Level?

The most obvious place to look for discrimination is in the appointment, or lack, of female faculty. Several respondents commented that they felt they had been overlooked for particular openings because they were women. Faculty hiring in the final analysis must include subjective factors, hence covert discrimination may well occur.

Before discussing present day discrimination with respect to hiring of women faculty, let me remind you of the situation of two or three decades ago. Take the example of Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Nobel Prize winner in theoretical physics in 1963. During the ’50s, she was at the University of Chicago, initially as an Associate Professor and a member of the Institute for Nuclear Studies. “There was, no salary, not even a nominal one, because of the University’s religiously observed nepotism clause that forbade the hiring of husband and wife even in different departments”(4). Her husband, Joseph Mayer, was a Professor of Chemistry at Chicago. The initial appointment was made in 1946. In 1959, both Mayers were offered positions at the University of California, both with salaries. And now suddenly, the University of Chicago forgot its nepotism rule and offered Maria Goeppert-Mayer a salary. It was, however, too late. Such a patent case could not, I hope, happen today – or could it? Another case was that of Cecila Payne-Gaposchkin who throughout the ’40s and ’50s was a full-fledged member of the Harvard Observatory Council with the title of Lecturer. As such, she participated in all matters concerning the Astronomy Department, including teaching and supervising Ph.D. theses as well as research. She did not, however, hold the professorial rank that her colleagues did until 1956. This was not a matter of nepotism but a matter of sex. Harvard just did not appoint women, whatever their credentials, to professorships. I am pleased to report that not only were Dr. Payne-Gaposchkin’s scientific accomplishments eventually recognized by her appointment as Full Professor at Harvard, but the American Astronomical Society this year awarded her its prestigious Russell Lectureship.

Returning to the present, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare often requires that desegregation and Affirmative Action plans compare the percentages of minority and female faculty in a university or department with the percentages in the “pool”. The pool consists of available persons “qualified” to be faculty members. Affirmative Action “goals” are generally considered to have been met when the departments’ percentages agree with or exceed that of the pool. Departments with much lower percentages are suspected of being discriminatory. Definition of the pool, of course, depends on the definition of qualified; one clearly cannot equate qualified with possessing a Ph.D. degree, for faculty qualifications are far more complex and vary with the institution. Moreover, a university department does not seek to hire merely someone who is qualified, but is desirous of enticing the best qualified person to fill a particular position. The greater the stature of the university or department, the greater the likelihood of attracting outstanding candidates(5).

The problem then extends to the definition of “best qualified”. As will become clear throughout this paper, judging quality must include a wide spectrum of factors. At universities, this judgment is universally based on research, with occasionally some attention given to teaching abilities. For example, when the field has been narrowed to five top candidates selected on the basis of their research, the final nod may go to the one with the best teaching credentials. But even before that stage, how does one judge quality of research? The importance of contributions is not easy to assess, but is in fact a subjective matter. Young people particularly may only have a Ph.D. thesis and one or two published papers, and these perhaps only “in press”. There must then be heavy reliance on references – letters or telephone communications. This is one place where discrimination may occur, covert or otherwise. One obviously gives greater weight to letters of reference from highly renowned, generally senior, scientists and from persons one knows: the old-boy network, maligned or notorious, depending on one’s viewpoint. Discrimination may occur because many of these senior scientists cannot conceive of a woman being a full-fledged colleague. They may envision the brilliant young man as eventually being a full professor at a prestigious university – but that young woman? Perish the thought! That may appear archaic, a scene from decades ago, but in fact, it still seems to occur. Thoughts like “women don’t belong in__________” (physics, astronomy, topology, zoology, engineering, take your choice) are still heard in the halls of academia. A person openly holding such a view will either not take a woman as a graduate student, or if he does, his views will color the letters of reference he writes for her. Happily these men are a vanishing breed as they approach retirement.

There are unfortunately also many scientists who subconsciously feel that women do not belong in their particular fields; a number of these are still reasonably young. When they turn to writing letters of reference, they will extol the potential contribution to the field that the male student or postdoctoral fellow will make. But when they write concerning the woman, the letters may instead stress the emotional stability of the candidate – something that is almost never mentioned in the letter for a man. The fact that the candidate is unlikely to cause a disastrous emotional outburst is hardly a criterion for selecting her over others when one is looking for, say, a plasma physicist. I hasten to point out that this dichotomy in letters of reference is by no means universal, and I have seen many very strong letters of recommendation for women scientists that address themselves simply to her scientific work and potential and her teaching abilities. Nevertheless, it is important for persons on search committees and admission committees to be alert to the possibility that “damning with faint praise”, such as commenting on personality rather than scientific work, may in fact be the result of either conscious or unconscious prejudice.

One characteristic that should be included in assessing “quality” is the role the particular person may play in a department. Only a woman can be a female role model; only a black, a black role model. That does not mean that women and black students may not be inspired by white male professors and by the discipline for itself. The concept of role model is an exceedingly difficult and ambiguous one; many white males, even successful women (the Queen Bee attitude?) do not readily understand its significance. The son of an Irish or Italian immigrant, blue-collar worker, who is now a member of the faculty of a respected university, may point out that there were no Irish or Italian faculty at the universities he attended. Nevertheless, those WASP faculty did not look all that different, and the American ideal of “anyone can be President” very much applied to him – that is why his parents immigrated, but it did not apply to her, nor to him who was black, or some other minority. Role models are important, and should be taken into consideration as part of the qualifications of potential faculty members. It is the obligation of a University to educate all its students, and by not providing diverse and appropriate role models, it short-changes its female (or minority) students.

Affirmative Action has resulted in much wider advertising of positions in the professional journals and also in journals such as the “Affirmative Action Register”. Such advertising, however, does not ensure that women candidates will in fact be considered with the full weight that their abilities warrant, nor that they will be hired. We must recognize the fact that jobs are scarce in all fields that lead to a Ph.D., and that there are many highly trained, highly qualified persons of both sexes who have not been able to find positions. It is simplistic to assume that just because highly qualified women in a particular field have not been appointed as faculty at some university that they necessarily have been discriminated against. Another aspect of the search and hiring procedure for faculty lies in the rather narrow limitations and restrictions that often surround such a position. An astronomy department, for instance, usually does not simply look for an astronomer, but may feel the need for someone specializing in nuclear astrophysics or in solar radio astronomy. This immediately narrows the field of potential candidates, sometimes by several orders of magnitude, and thus the chances that there be a woman within that small pool is greatly diminished. This narrowness occurs both on the part of the search and sometimes in the training. Students seem reluctant to change fields, those doing the hiring give very strong preference to those with the “appropriate” training. When, however, we look at the work of the most renowned scientists, we find that many have changed fields or worked on a broad spectrum of subjects. There should be far greater recognition of the fact that learning does not end with the attainment of a degree. I am reminded of the story that has been told about S. Chandrasekhar, one of the great astrophysicists of the mid-20th century, who would undertake to teach a graduate course in a particular subject when he wanted to work in that field. He knew that by teaching he would learn and soon thereafter make substantial contributions to the field. I suggest that if one finds an able candidate, but possibly not quite in the right field, that person should neverth...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• About the Editor and Authors
• Introduction and Overview
• 1 The Individual and the Institution
• 2 Setting Up an Affirmative Action Program
• 3 Affirmative Action and the Continuing Majority: Women of All Races and Minority Men
• 4 Psychological Barriers for Women in Sciences: Internal and External
• 5 Male and Female Leadership Styles: The Double Bind