[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WOMEN IN ACADEMIC
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 17, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-258 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 17, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Donna E. Shalala, Professor of Political Science; President,
University of Miami
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 20
Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 26
Dr. Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, President, University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Biography.................................................... 33
Dr. Myron Campbell, Chair, Physics Department, University of
Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 38
Dr. Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government; Director, Center
for Women's and Gender Studies, University of Texas at Austin
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 49
Discussion....................................................... 49
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Donna E. Shalala, Professor of Political Science; President,
University of Miami............................................ 62
Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation 64
Dr. Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, President, University of Maryland,
Baltimore County............................................... 67
Dr. Myron Campbell, Chair, Physics Department, University of
Michigan....................................................... 69
Dr. Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government; Director, Center
for Women's and Gender Studies, University of Texas at Austin.. 70
WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Women in Academic
Science and Engineering
wednesday, october 17, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, October 17, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will hold a
hearing to examine institutional and cultural barriers to recruitment
and retention of women faculty in science and engineering fields, best
practices for overcoming these barriers, and the role that federal
research agencies can play in disseminating and promoting best
practices.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Donna Shalala, President, University of Miami.
Dr. Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation.
Dr. Freeman Hrabowski, President, University of Maryland Baltimore
County.
Dr. Myron Campbell, Chair of Physics, University of Michigan.
Dr. Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government, University of Texas at
Austin.
3. Overarching Questions
What is the current status of women in academic
science and engineering? How do recruitment, retention,
promotion and attrition rates differ for men and women in these
fields? How and why do these data vary by discipline and type
of institution?
What are the greatest barriers to gender equity in
academic science and engineering? What have we learned about
what works and doesn't work to recruit and retain top female
scientists and engineers into tenure-track positions? To what
extent are best practices in recruitment and retention already
being implemented?
What can the federal research agencies do to help
identify, promote and disseminate best practices across the
country? What responsibility do the agencies have to hold
funded institutions accountable for subtle cultural barriers?
4. Overview
Although women earn half of the Bachelor's degrees in
science and engineering (S&E), they continue to be
significantly under-represented at the faculty level in almost
all S&E fields, constituting 28 percent (in 2003) of doctoral
science and engineering faculty in four-year colleges and
universities and only 18 percent of full professors.
In 2006, the National Academies produced a report
entitled, ``Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential
of Women in Academic Science and Engineering.'' The report was
largely in response to the outcry over then Harvard President
Lawrence Summers' 2005 remarks, in which he argued that
biological differences may help explain female under-
representation in academic S&E.
The National Academies panel, in addition to
dismissing the relative significance of any biological
differences, made a series of recommendations to all
stakeholders, including universities, professional societies
and the Federal Government, to address cultural and
institutional gender bias in academic S&E.
The National Academies panel main recommendation to
Congress was to carry out regular oversight hearings to
investigate enforcement activities. Most of the experts
contacted in preparation for this hearing agreed that while the
Federal Government could do a better job with enforcement of
anti-discrimination laws at universities, the more subtle
cultural barriers present a much greater challenge to women
seeking academic careers.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) established the
ADVANCE program in 2000 to develop approaches for increasing
the representation and advancement of women in academic science
and engineering careers. While previous NSF programs for the
advancement of women focused on support for individual
scientists, the goal of ADVANCE grants is institutional
transformation.
5. Current Status of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
According to data compiled by NSF, in 2003, women held nearly 28
percent of all full-time science and engineering (S&E) faculty
positions. Specifically, they constituted 18 percent of full
professors, 31 percent of associate professors and 40 percent of
junior, or assistant professors.
Most of the social science disciplines and psychology are already
dominated by women at both the graduate level and in faculty positions.
The percentage of women earning Ph.D.'s in other S&E fields has grown
steadily in the last 30 years, and has already exceeded 50 percent in
the life sciences. However, in 2003 women constituted 34 percent of
assistant professor appointments in the life sciences, and slightly
less at research universities. Half of this drop-off can be accounted
for by including only the available pool of Ph.D.'s\1\ in the life
sciences: 42 percent in 2003. But attrition is still high in the step
from completion of training to faculty appointment. Female under-
representation in life sciences faculties continues through the
associate and full professor levels. Notably, while the physical
sciences continue to have low representation at the graduate level (20
percent), relative to the available pool of Ph.D.'s the physical
sciences actually show better representation for women in tenure-track
faculty positions than the life sciences and other fields with a
greater percentage of women Ph.D.'s. The figure below shows these data
for assistant and associate professor positions across all fields.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the case of assistant professor appointments, the available
pool is the sum of Ph.D.'s earned by women in the six-year period
preceding appointment.
\2\ Figure and related data is this section from National Academies
report, ``Beyond Bias and Barriers.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Women who start out on academic pathways in S&E fields leave for
other career paths at higher rates than their male counterparts, even
though for the fields in which attrition is highest, women show
increased representation at the postdoctoral level. Postdoctoral
positions are a necessary prerequisite to faculty jobs in most S&E
fields. From among those who leave post-faculty appointment but pre-
tenure review, men are more likely to move into other employment
sectors and women are more likely to move into adjunct positions.
However, in most fields, women and men faculty who are reviewed receive
tenure at similar rates. As faculty move up in rank, there are again
differences between men and women, this time in promotions, awards and
even salary.
6. Institutional and Cultural Bias and Barriers
In 2006, the National Academies produced a report entitled,
``Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in
Academic Science and Engineering.'' The report was largely in response
to the outcry over then Harvard President Lawrence Summers' 2005
remarks, in which he attributed what many thought to be a greatly
exaggerated level of significance to a biological explanation for
female under-representation in academic S&E. The NAS panel reviewed the
existing literature on gender differences in cognition and biology and
concluded that, ``if systematic differences between male and female
scientific and mathematical aptitude and ability do exist, it is clear
that they cannot account for women's under-representation in academic
science and engineering.'' \3\ Instead, the panel focused on the need
to fix institutional, social and cultural bias and barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Critics of the NAS report disparage the panel for dismissing
the significance of biology before all of the scientific evidence is
in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To this end, the National Academies panel made a number of
recommendations to all stakeholders. The panel called on university
presidents and provosts to provide clear leadership in changing the
culture and structure of their institutions, and deans and department
chairs to take responsibility for implementing changes to recruiting,
hiring, promotion, and tenure practices. They recommended that higher
education organizations form an inter-institution monitoring
organization and that scientific and professional societies help set
professional and equity standards across the activities they lead, such
as awards and conferences. The recommendations made to the Federal
Government ranged from rigorous enforcement of federal anti-
discrimination laws by enforcement agencies to provision of workshops
to minimize gender bias by NSF and other federal funding agencies. The
full list of recommendations is in the report summary available from
the National Academy Press: http://books.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record-id=11741
The status of women in academic S&E has improved appreciably in the
last three decades, and institutions across the country are continuing
to address institutional barriers to gender equity. However, the
National Academies panel argues that changes in institutional policies
are necessary but not sufficient--even many policies that appear on the
surface to be equitable in fact disadvantage women. For example, many
women who want children struggle with the intersection of the tenure
clock and their biological clock. Many more men are also making work/
life balance career decisions.\4\ In order to attract top faculty
candidates who want both career and family, a number of universities
offer the possibility of an extension of the tenure clock--the number
of years to tenure review--for assistant professors who have a child
while under the clock. But in most cases young faculty feel pressure
not to request this extension for fear that they will be judged
differently in the tenure review process. In this case, cultural norms
undermine a well-intentioned policy, and women, who are more often the
primary caregivers for infants (especially if they breast feed), are
disproportionably disadvantaged. Some universities have instituted an
automatic rather than voluntary extension of the tenure clock in an
attempt to overcome those cultural barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Currently, 42 percent of women in tenure and tenure-track
careers have children, while 50 percent of their male colleagues have
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report also discusses at length a phenomenon known as
``implicit bias,'' in this case an implicit assumption of what a
scientist is supposed to look like, i.e., a man, and probably a white
man. The panel cites a Swedish\5\ study of peer-review scores, in which
men received systematically higher competence ratings by their peers
than equally productive women. In fact, women postdoctoral fellowship
applicants included in that study had to be twice as productive (as
measured by defined, quantitative measures of productivity) than their
male counterparts to be judged equally competent. This field of
research is still relatively young, but the collection of evidence
supporting the notion of implicit gender bias in academic S&E continues
to grow. Minority-group women, as members of two major demographic
groups historically excluded from the scientific enterprise, face their
own unique set of challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sweden has been named by the United Nations as a world leader
in gender equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of cultural norms that appear to disadvantage women also
includes the favoring of disciplinary over interdisciplinary research
and publications, and the only token attention given to teaching and
other service during the tenure review process.\6\ Thus it seems that
it is not necessarily conscious bias against women but an ingrained
idea of how the academic enterprise ``should be'' that presents the
greatest challenge to women seeking academic S&E careers. Overcoming
these cultural barriers is much more difficult than just enforcing
anti-discrimination laws or making university policies more family
friendly. And even among those who passionately advocate for change,
there is no consensus about how or if to modify some of those core
practices that have defined the academic enterprise for generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ While the reasons are unclear, it appears that women are more
likely to engage in interdisciplinary and collaborative research, and
to put more energy and time into teaching and mentoring activities than
their male colleagues.
7. NSF ADVANCE Program
The National Science Foundation established the ADVANCE grant
program to develop approaches for increasing the representation and
advancement of women in academic S&E careers through institutional
transformation. Nearly 30 institutions have been awarded five-year
ADVANCE grants since 2001. While previous NSF programs for the
advancement of women focused on support for individual scientists, the
goal of ADVANCE grants is to tackle the institutional and cultural
barriers to all women. These grants have enabled funded institutions to
experiment with innovative recruitment and retention policies, as well
as targeted mentoring, workshops on implicit bias, and other activities
to raise awareness among departmental chairs and S&E faculty at large
about the existence of real barriers to women scientists and engineers.
As the witnesses in today's hearing will testify, the ``rubber hits the
road'' at the departmental level, where Department Chairs are
responsible for implementing the policies and goals established by
their institutions' leaders.
Many of the activities funded under the ADVANCE program were cited
by the National Academies panel as examples of policies and programs
that seem to be making a difference. In particular, they recommended
workshops to minimize gender bias, and NSF and other research agencies
have already hosted such workshops in the physics and chemistry
communities. Grantees share those and other best practices through
their websites and annual meetings of principal investigators, and NSF
plans to award Partnerships for Adaptation, Implementation, and
Dissemination (PAID) Awards in 2008. Two of the witnesses on today's
panel are at universities that have or had ADVANCE grants.
8. Questions for Witnesses
Donna Shalala
Please describe the findings and recommendations of
the National Academies report, Beyond Bias and Barriers, in
particular the recommendations directed toward the Federal
Government and that are relevant to issues of faculty
recruitment, retention and promotion.
What are the biggest challenges and most promising
solutions to achieving gender equity in academic science and
engineering?
As President of a university, what policies have you
instituted on your own campus to ensure gender equity, and how
to do you ensure compliance at the departmental level?
Kathie Olsen
Please describe what the National Science Foundation
(NSF), through its ADVANCE program for institutional
transformation, has learned about the biggest challenges and
most-promising solutions to achieving gender equity in faculty
recruitment, retention and general climate in science and
engineering fields.
What is NSF doing to broadly disseminate and
encourage best practices identified through the ADVANCE
program?
In addition to the activities already described, what
else can NSF and other federal research agencies do to promote
and ensure a more favorable environment for women in academic
science and engineering fields?
Freeman Hrabowski
Please describe the programs that you have been able
to carry out through your university's ADVANCE grant. What are
the biggest challenges and greatest successes in trying to
achieve institutional change toward greater gender equity on
your campus? How do you ensure compliance at the departmental
level?
The National Academies report, Beyond Bias and
Barriers, described a ``conspiracy of silence'' regarding
minority-group women. What are the greatest challenges faced by
minority-group women scientists and engineers? Have you been
able to identify institutional policies or practices that
successfully mitigate these challenges?
Beyond funding ADVANCE grants at a handful of
universities, what can the National Science Foundation and
other federal funding agencies do to help identify and
encourage best practices in faculty gender equity across the
country?
Myron Campbell
Please describe the efforts you have undertaken as
Chair of your Physics Department to recruit and retain women
faculty. How did you come to take this on as a priority? What
are your biggest challenges and greatest successes?
Beyond funding ADVANCE grants at a handful of
universities, what can the National Science Foundation and
other federal funding agencies do to help identify and
encourage best practices in faculty gender equity across the
country?
Please describe the purpose of the American Physical
Society (APS) workshop on gender equity that you participated
in last May. What can APS and similar societies do to help
promote gender equity in science and engineering fields?
Gretchen Ritter
Please describe efforts on your own campus to
identify and address any barriers to recruitment and retention
of women faculty, especially in science and engineering
departments.
What are the biggest challenges and most promising
solutions to achieving gender equity in academic science and
engineering across the country?
Beyond funding ADVANCE grants at a handful of
universities, what can the National Science Foundation and
other federal funding agencies do to help identify and
encourage best practices in faculty gender equity across the
country?
Chairman Baird. Good afternoon and welcome to our guests.
Our distinguished panel is here, and we are joined by my dear
friend and colleague, Ranking Member Dr. Vern Ehlers. This is a
particularly exciting meeting--and I am supposed to--I guess I
should say the hearing will come to order. So now, having said
that, we can get to what really matters.
It is particularly exciting for all of us here on this
committee, which has a passionate interest in science
education. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is
particularly committed to this issue as is our Full Committee
Chairman Bart Gordon. And I want to also single out Eddie
Bernice Johnson, who was previously the Ranking Member of this
subcommittee. Sadly, Ms. Johnson cannot be with us today due to
the death of her mother. We send our condolences to Eddie B.
She is a dear friend and a tireless champion of women and
minorities in science, and it is a deeply unfortunate
juxtaposition of events that the hearing which she has long
labored to help put together, she is unable to attend, but she
wants us to send all of you here her regards, and we will
convey to her, of course, testimony that we receive today.
Women are receiving Ph.D.s in steadily increasingly
numbers. In fact, in some fields, women have achieved parity
with men at the graduate level. Unfortunately, however, they
still hold only 28 percent of full-time science and engineering
faculty positions, and only 18 percent of full professor
positions.
Today's hearing will explore what happens to the available
pool of women who have stuck it out all of the way through a
Ph.D. Those accomplished women leave academia in greater
numbers than men, and those who stay in academia continue to be
promoted, recognized for academic achievement, and paid at
lower rates than their male colleagues.
A National Academies panel recommended that the Department
of Justice and other enforcement agencies put more effort into
enforcing anti-discrimination laws on university campuses;
however, the same panel implied that the most intractable
barriers to women in academic science and engineering are
intractable precisely because they will not be overcome through
even the most rigorous enforcement of the law. These are
barriers created not by willful individuals or institutions.
Rather, they are barriers created by the collective effect of
many small and usually subtle incidents of subconscious bias on
the part of well-intentioned individuals and even by some of
the seemingly gender-neutral practices in academic science and
engineering.
We invited today's witnesses to help us understand exactly
what the barriers are, how we might continue to break them
down, and specifically how the federal research agencies can
improve the status of women in academic science and
engineering.
We cannot afford to continue losing our best and brightest
woman, or minorities, for that matter, from academic science
and engineering careers. The seeds of progress in U.S.
competitiveness, security, and well being are formed in our
college and university research laboratories. The interaction
and collaboration of diverse individuals with differing
perspectives enriches the entire process and stimulates even
greater discovery and innovation.
I am particularly interested in the importance of role
models and mentors, both for minority students and women
students, because I believe that is absolutely critical. Most
of us who went on and got doctorates can point to someone in
the pipeline who inspired us and led us to believe that we,
too, could do what they are doing and that it is worth the
effort and time and price to get there, and so I am
particularly interested in your thoughts on that as well today.
I also want to note that this is the first in multiple
hearings that we plan to hold in this committee to look at the
involvement of women in STEM fields. In fact, we will hold a
hearing soon on how we might encourage more girls to stick with
math and science studies through high school, college, and
beyond, since attrition occurs at every step of the way. Today
we are looking at the attrition at the completed end of the
continuum, so to speak, folks who have obtained Ph.D.s, but
there are so many qualified young girls and women who have the
mental capacity and the interest, but for some various reasons
along the way, we lose from the pipeline in the STEM fields,
and we want to do what we can to stop that and encourage
greater continuation of the studies.
So I want to thank all of the witnesses--as you can see, we
will introduce them in a moment--a particularity capable and
impressive panel.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing on Women in Academic
Science and Engineering. I want to thank my dear friend Ms. Johnson for
requesting this hearing and for her tireless work over the years to
increase diversity in science and engineering. Sadly, Ms. Johnson
cannot be with us today due to the death of her mother.
Women are receiving Ph.D.s in steadily increasing numbers. In fact,
in some fields, women have achieved parity with men at the graduate
level. Unfortunately, however, they still hold only 28 percent of all
full-time science and engineering faculty positions, and only 18
percent of full professor positions.
Today, we want to explore what happens to the available pool of
women who have stuck it out all the way through a Ph.D. These
accomplished women leave academia in greater numbers than men, and
those who do stay in academia continue to be promoted, recognized for
academic achievement, and paid at lower rates than their male
colleagues.
A National Academies panel recommended that the Department of
Justice and other enforcement agencies put more effort into enforcing
anti-discrimination laws on university campuses. However, the same
panel implied that the most intractable barriers to women in academic
science and engineering are intractable precisely because they will not
be overcome through even the most rigorous enforcement of the law. They
are barriers created not by willful individuals or institutions.
Rather, they are barriers created by the collective effect of many
small and usually subtle incidents of subconscious bias on the part of
well-intentioned individuals and even by some of the seemingly gender-
neutral practices in academic science and engineering.
We invited today's witnesses to help us understand exactly what
those barriers are, how we might continue to break them down, and
specifically how the federal research agencies can help improve the
status of women in academic science and engineering.
We cannot afford to continue losing our best and brightest women,
or minorities for that matter, from academic science and engineering
careers. The seeds of progress in U.S. competitiveness, security and
well-being are formed in our colleges and universities' research
laboratories. The interaction and collaboration of diverse individuals
with differing perspectives enriches the entire process and stimulates
even greater discovery and invention.
I also want to note that this is the first in multiple hearings
that we plan to hold to look at the involvement of women in STEM
fields. In fact, we will hold a hearing soon on how we might encourage
more girls to stick with math and science studies through high school,
college and beyond, since attrition occurs at every step along the way.
I thank all of the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to your testimony.
Chairman Baird. And at this point, I will recognize my dear
friend and colleague Dr. Ehlers. I think we have been joined by
Ralph Hall, the senior Member of our committee. Ralph, thank
you for joining us. Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much
for holding this hearing. It is a very important topic.
Understanding the difficulties that female faculty faces is
challenging. The climate is changing, but it is still an uphill
battle to get faculty of either gender to have frank
conversations about this historically valid, volatile topic.
Nevertheless, as the National Academies' 2006 Beyond Bias and
Barriers report pointed out, higher education must change both
the culture and structure of its institutions so that obstacles
to women advancing in science and engineering are removed.
I have spent a lot of my time in Congress working to
improve STEM education at the K-12 levels. And I have to
comment that today's topic is not as distanced from elementary
and secondary education as you might think. Without role models
along every step of the way, we face an impossible task to
encourage young girls to pursue careers in science and
engineering, and it is very important to have elementary and
secondary schoolteachers who are female, and obviously, enjoy
math and science. The best role models tend to be happy ones,
not women who are regretting their decision to stick it out in
science and engineering because they are perhaps subject to
pervasive negative attitudes from their colleagues. Students
are quick to recognize which professors like their jobs, and
students will be influence, accordingly, about their own career
goals.
I have been fortune to have female colleagues in physics
from the time I was an undergraduate student at Calvin College,
straight though my graduate studies and to my time as a Physics
Professor. But of course, these women were always far
outnumbered by their male colleagues. Even through significant
progress has occurred since I left academia, many institutions
are still in need of dissolving antiquated perceptions and the
actions that come with them about the appropriateness of women
in science and engineering. And female students, occasionally,
must also dissolve their perception.
I have always made a point in speaking to my students and
to the public about this issue to point out how strange it is
in America. You go to China, roughly 50 percent of the
scientists are female. You go to Russia, you go to many other
countries, and it is the same. It simply can't be true that
American women are less capable in math and science than the
women of Russia, China, and a number of other countries. It has
to be a cultural issue, and we have to change our culture and
recognize the problems of the culture and change the culture
accordingly.
And I don't want to bore my colleagues here, but I have an
example I have often given with my daughter, who had As all the
way through elementary school, in every subject for that
matter, but especially in math. She got to high school, started
Algebra, got an A on the first test, A-minus on the second, B
on the third and so forth. And I said we have to have a little
talk. What is going on here? She said well, you know girls
can't get math. We had never had that perception through eight
years of education. She got to high school, that was the
perception, and she felt she had to meet it. But after a little
conversation, she went back to conquer the world and got As the
rest of the way through and took calculus in college and became
an English major, which was perfectly fine with me. I didn't
expect her to major in science, but at least get enough so that
it will help you in every career you have taken. And this
happened to both of our daughters, and they both have done
extremely well, partly because of the facility they learned in
taking calculus, and also I asked them to take computer
programming. Those are skills, those are ways of thinking, that
are of value in almost any position you might take today.
I look forward to haring from our witnesses about some of
the innovative programs that are making a difference in
recruiting and retaining female faculty, and how we can build
upon these innovative programs. Thank you very much, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Understanding the difficulties that female faculty face is
challenging. The climate is changing, but it is still an uphill battle
to get faculty of either gender to have frank conversations about this
historically volatile topic. Nevertheless, as the National Academies'
2006 ``Beyond Bias and Barriers'' report pointed out, higher education
must change both the culture and structure of its institutions so that
obstacles to women advancing in science and engineering are removed.
While I have spent a lot of my time in Congress working to improve
STEM education at the K-12 levels, today's topic is not as distanced
from elementary and secondary education as you might think. Without
role models along every step of the way, we face an impossible task to
encourage young girls to pursue careers in science and engineering. The
best role models tend to be happy ones, not women who are regretting
their decision to stick it out in science and engineering fields
because they are subject to pervasive negative attitudes. Students are
quick to recognize which professors like their jobs and be influenced
accordingly about their own career goals.
I have been fortunate to have female colleagues from the time I was
an undergraduate student at Calvin College straight through to my time
as a Physics Professor, but of course, these women were always far
outnumbered by their male colleagues. Even though significant progress
has occurred since I left academia, many institutions are still in need
of dissolving antiquated perceptions--and the actions that come with
them--about the appropriateness of women in science and engineering.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about some of the
innovative programs that are making a difference in recruiting and
retaining female faculty, and how we can build upon them.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing to examine
institutional and cultural barriers to the recruitment and retention of
women faculty in science and engineering fields. It is important for
the Federal Government to encourage best practices to overcome these
barriers.
Women earn half of the Bachelor's degrees in science and
engineering (S&E), but they continue to be significantly under-
represented at the faculty level in almost all S&E fields. It is
important that Congress provide oversight to tackle this discrepancy in
order to be sure that the country benefits from having the best-and-
the-brightest doing research and teaching.
Today we are going to follow through on the National Academies
recommendation that Congress oversee the efforts to break-down the
biases that are impeding women's entry and retention in science and
engineering academia. We are going to find out what is working and
learn what challenges remain. We hope to help spread the best practices
and encourage the continued progress towards a more representative
scientific faculty.
To all the witnesses--thank you for taking time out of your busy
schedules to appear before us today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Chairman Baird. At this time, I want to introduce our
witnesses, and I want to thank, particularly, our staff on the
Science Committee for helping invite such a distinguished panel
of witnesses.
And our protocol here is that you have five minutes to
offer your comments. Obviously, each of you could probably give
us an insightful half-day or full-day or multiple-day
discussion of this issue, but we can keep the opening responses
fairly brief, then we can have a good give and take. And it is
a friendly committee here, and we look very much forward to
your comments.
Our first speaker--I will introduce all of the witnesses,
and then following that, each will offer their comments. Dr.
Donna Shalala really needs no introduction. She is President of
the University of Miami, before that, served for eight years as
Secretary of Health and Human Services and has a long,
distinguished career prior to that as well.
Dr. Kathie Olsen is the Deputy Directory at the National
Science Foundation. Dr. Freeman Hrabowski is president of the
University of Maryland Baltimore County; Dr. Myron Campbell,
Chair of the Department of Physics, at the University of
Michigan; and Dr. Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government and
the Director of the Center for Women's and Gender Studies at
the University of Texas at Austin. Thank you to all of you for
being here. Our witnesses, as I mentioned, will have five-
minute testimony, and if any other Members wish to offer
comments, they will be invited to do so. We have been joined by
Dr. Jerry McNerney from California.
We will start now with Dr. Shalala. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONNA E. SHALALA, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE; PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Dr. Shalala. Thank you very much, Chairman Baird, Ranking
Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify, and I am going to specifically testify
on the report of the National Academies' Beyond Bias and
Barriers, Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering, a panel that I chaired for the National
Academy of Sciences. I am a member of the Institute of Medicine
of the National Academies.
The report finds that while the U.S. clearly must take
steps to maintain its scientific and engineering leadership in
a climate of increasingly economic and educational
globalization, we cannot take advantage of our talent and our
human capital because women face significant barriers in every
field of science and engineering. This crisis calls for a
transformation of the academy, which requires action by
educational leaders and the support of federal funding
agencies, foundations of government agencies and of Congress.
Eliminating gender bias in universities requires immediate
and overreaching reform and decisive action by university
administrators, by professional societies, by government
agencies and by Congress. Let me talk a little about our
findings. I don't want to take too much time from my other very
distinguished colleagues.
We found that women have the ability to and drive to
succeed in science and engineering. Women who are interested in
science and engineering careers are lost at every educational
transition, which is a point that you made, Mr. Chairman. The
problem is not simply that loss through the pipeline because in
the rank of full professor at the top research universities,
women, on the average, hold less than 15 percent of tenured
faculty positions in the social, behavioral, and life sciences
and dramatically less than that in all of the other fields of
science and engineering. Women are likely to face
discrimination in every field of science and engineering, and a
substantial body of evidence establishes that most people--this
is a very important finding: both men and women hold implicit
biases.
Evaluation criteria contained arbitrary and subjective
components that disadvantage women because women faculty are
paid less, promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors and hold
fewer leadership positions than men. Academic organizational
structures and rules contribute significantly to the under-use
of women in academic science and engineering. The consequences
of not acting will be detrimental to this country's
competitiveness.
Our recommendations are many, and let me just summarize
them. We recommend to federal funding agencies and foundations
to federal agencies and to Congress as follows: federal funding
agencies and foundations should counter these biases and begin
to make full use of our full talent pool in this critical area
by making sure that all rules and regulations support the full
participation of women. All science research funding agencies
should provide workshops on and expand research support for
gender bias, collect, store, and publish composite information
for all funding applications and awards, provide funding
opportunities for dependent care support including attendance
at work-related conferences and meeting and interim technical
or administrative support during dependent-care-related leaves
of absence. The Packer Foundation and NIAID have funded such
programs that could be models for other granting agencies. And
expand support for research on the efficacy of organizational
programs designed to reduce gender bias and access and advance
a funded model program.
Federal agencies should also lay out clear guidelines,
leverage resources and rigorously enforce antidiscrimination
laws in all institutions of higher education to increase the
science and engineering talent developed in this country.
On this point, I want to make a point as a leader of an
institution that has a football team. I hear more about gender
equity in our sports programs from a combination of federal
agencies and the NCAA than I do about gender bias in the hiring
and promotion of women at the institution. And one of the
recommendations that we made here, which very much came out of
my experience with sports--Freeman, luckily, doesn't have to
worry about a football team, right? Chess--is that we need a
similar kind of organization like the NCAA that holds us
accountable and that has incentives to make sure we are doing
what we should be doing. I am an expert on NCAA rules. I know a
lot about Title IX, but more because of sport programs than
because of educational programs, and that is something that
Congress can clearly fix.
Congress, because of the insidious ways in which bias can
permeate even an environment that aspires to transparency, like
the Academy, has to direct its full attention, as this
committee is, to enforcing those antidiscrimination laws,
including regular oversight hearings to investigate the
enforcement activities of the Department of Education, the
EEOC, the Department of Labor, and the science-granting
agencies.
We discovered many challenges, but also promising solutions
to the problems we identified. The most significant challenge
is how deeply ingrained gender and racial biases are in our
society. Too many excellent scientists and engineers opt out
because of what they perceive as a hostile climate for women in
hiring, tenure, promotion, and compensation. But ongoing
efforts to identify and examine biases have begun to change
recruitment, hiring, and retention processes at many
universities, and they show a great deal of promise.
Let me give you some examples: in 2006, NSF, NIH, and DOD
hauled in 60 department chairs of chemistry department, and
worked with them to identify strategies that chemistry
departments, universities and federal agencies could implement
to encourage and enable broader participation of women in
academic research careers. We recommended that NIH, DOE, and
NSF do that in other disciplines. That is a pretty simple,
straightforward process: bring in the department chairs and
talk to them about what the research shows and what they might
do to transform their own department. An NSF advanced funded
program at the University of Wisconsin Madison provides onsite
workshops for department chairs and search committee chairs.
And an uncommonly effective model which I developed as the
Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison is the
Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute, a
centralized, highly visible, administrative structure to
address a number of impediments to women's academic
achievement. It is endorsed by top-level administrators, and it
uses the UW Madison as a living laboratory to study the problem
and implement solutions.
For me as President of the University of Miami, my strategy
is to do everything you can think of because we don't know one
program is affected. They call me Boom-Boom because I believe
in using strategy that anyone has successfully used to try to
do something.
Last year, our faculty committee on women and minorities
produced a report on diversity and tenure-tracked faulty,
focusing exclusively on the areas of science, technology,
engineering, math, and medicine. We did, recently, hire an
associate dean for faculty diversity, which will work with the
Provost, focused on our medical school in particular. We have a
bridging program. We have a post-doc funding program. We run
workshops for our search committees as well as for our faculty.
We are focused, not just on gender, but also on race, and our
workload relief program provides release from teaching
responsibilities for primary caregivers after the birth or the
adoption of a child and for a one-year extension of their
tenure clocks.
We can't afford to operate the old ways. I was once in
Japan, recently, actually, and they kept saying to me what are
you going to do to really be competitive with the rest of the
world, and my answer was we are going to do something the rest
of them are not going to do. We are going to use all of our
talent. The only way the U.S.A. can be competitive, we have to
reach women and minorities. We have to use all of our talent to
be competitive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shalala follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna E. Shalala
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Report of
the National Academies: Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the
Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The report
finds that while the United States clearly must take steps to maintain
its scientific and engineering leadership in a climate of increasing
economic and educational globalization, it cannot take advantage of all
of its human capital, because women face significant barriers in every
field of science and engineering.
This crisis clearly calls for a transformation of academic
institutions. That requires action by educational leaders and also the
support of federal funding agencies and foundations, governmental
agencies, and Congress.
We must remove the obstacles that are holding women back in science
and engineering fields. Eliminating gender bias in universities will
require immediate, overarching reform and decisive action by university
administrators, professional societies, government agencies, and
Congress. Nothing less than a coordinated effort across public,
private, and governmental sectors will achieve the reforms necessary
for America to retain its competitiveness on the global stage.
Findings
The report finds that:
Women have the ability and drive to succeed in
science and engineering
Women who are interested in science and engineering
careers are lost at every educational transition
The problem is not simply that loss through the
pipeline, because in the rank of full professor at the top
research institutions women on average hold less than 15
percent of tenured faculty positions in the social, behavioral,
and life sciences, and dramatically less than that in the all
other fields of science and engineering
Women are very likely to face discrimination in every
field of science and engineering
A substantial body of evidence establishes that most
people--both men and women--hold implicit biases
Evaluation criteria contain arbitrary and subjective
components that disadvantage women because women faculty are
paid less, promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold
fewer leadership positions than men, and these discrepancies
aren't based on any of the standard measures of performance
Academic organizational structures and rules
contribute significantly to the under-use of women in academic
science and engineering
The consequences of not acting will be detrimental to
the Nation's competitiveness
Recommendations
The report's recommendations to federal funding agencies and
foundations, to federal agencies, and to Congress are as follows:
Federal funding agencies and foundations should counter these biases
and begin to make full use of our full talent pool in this critical
area, by making sure that all rules and regulations support the full
participation of women. All science research funding agencies should:
Provide workshops on, and expand research support
for, gender bias
Collect, store, and publish composite information for
all funding applications and awards
Provide funding opportunities for dependent care
support--including attendance at work-related conferences and
meetings, and interim technical or administrative support
during dependent care related leave of absence--the Packard
Foundation and NIAID have funded such programs that could be
models for other granting agencies
Expand support for research on efficacy of
organizational programs designed to reduce gender bias. NSF and
ADVANCE have funded model programs.
Federal agencies should lay out clear guidelines, leverage resources,
and rigorously enforce existing anti-discrimination laws in all
institutions of higher education to increase the science and
engineering talent developed in this country.
Congress, because of the insidious ways in which bias can permeate even
an environment that aspires to transparency, like the academy, must
direct its full attention to enforcing anti-discrimination laws,
including regular oversight hearings to investigate the enforcement
activities of the Department of Education, the EEOC, the Department of
Labor, and the science granting agencies.
Challenges and Solutions
In preparing this report we discovered many challenges, but also,
promising solutions to the problems of achieving gender equity in
academic science and engineering. The most significant challenge is how
deeply ingrained gender and racial biases are in, and part of the
fabric of, our society. People--both men and women--for the most part
intend to be fair, but act on unexamined biases when evaluating others.
Many excellent scientists and engineers are opting out of the academic
career path because of the perceived hostile climate for women--in
hiring, tenure, promotion, and compensation--particularly those who
wish to combine family or community service with research and teaching.
We are losing too many who could contribute to the Nation's science and
engineering enterprise, and who could increase our chances of
maintaining our position as a global leader in these critical areas.
But the landscape also includes some promising solutions. Ongoing
efforts to identify and examine biases have begun to change
recruitment, hiring, and retention processes at universities. One
example is a 2006 meeting, http://www.chem.harvard.edu/groups/friend/
GenderEquityWorkshop/, co-sponsored by NIH, DOE, and NSF, during which
60 chairs of chemistry departments were brought together for a two-day
session to identify strategies that chemistry departments,
universities, and federal agencies could implement to encourage and
enable broader participation of women in academic research careers. The
session covered demographics of the training ``pipeline,'' research on
biases that affect recruitment and hiring, and development action
items. An NSF ADVANCE-funded program at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison, provides on-site workshops for department chairs, http://
wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/, and search committee chairs. These three-session
workshops provide chairs an opportunity to explore the climate in their
department, identify key issues, develop action plans, and discuss the
impact of changes they have made. These examples are models that can be
adopted across the country.
Another uncommonly effective model, developed when I was Chancellor
of the University of Wisconsin, the Women in Science and Engineering
Leadership Institute (WISELI), http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/, is a
centralized, visible administrative structure with a mission to address
a number of impediments to women's academic advancement.
The center structure of WISELI allows the institute
to bring the issues of women scientists and engineers from
obscurity to visibility
It provides an effective and legitimate means of
networking women faculty across departments, decreasing
isolation, advocating for and mentoring women faculty, and
linking women postdoctoral fellows in predominantly male
environments with a variety of women faculty
WISELI's long-term goal is to have the gender of the
faculty, chairs, and deans reflect the gender of the student
body
To accomplish these goals, WISELI will be a visible,
campus-wide entity, endorsed by top-level administrators, which
will use UW-Madison as a ``living laboratory'' to study the
problem and implement solutions.
A Case in Point: The University of Miami
For me, as President of the University of Miami, the problem is
very close to home. Leadership on this issue must begin at the top, but
it can't be simply legislation from the top. It requires buy-in and
accountability at every link in the chain of command. Within the past
two years at the University of Miami, I have put in place an almost
completely new senior leadership and decanal team, and we have made one
of our very top priorities the task of addressing the issues of gender
(and other) biases, and redressing inequities, in recruitment, hiring,
promotion, retention, and compensation.
Our report provides a Scorecard that allows universities to track
and evaluate their progress on these issues, and the University of
Miami's is included in my written statement. It is a humbling
experience indeed to complete one of these scorecards, even in a place
in which there is the commitment and leadership we have in place here,
but our completed scorecard is helping us as we move forward on these
issues. Our strategies and programs to address the issues include the
following:
Last year, our Faculty Senate's Committee on Women
and Minorities, produced a report on diversity and equity in
the tenured and tenure-track faculty, by job class and gender
in all the schools and divisions. We focused explicitly on the
areas of science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine.
We hired an Associate Dean for Faculty Diversity and
Development for our Miller School of Medicine, who also will
work with the Provost and me on university-wide programs and
assessment.
We developed a Bridging Program through which the
Provost's office provides funding between the period of an
opportunity/diversity hire, and the time that a tenure line
opens within a department.
Our Post Doc Funding Program is designed to identify
promising new women and minority Ph.D. graduates who are
prospective faculty hires, but not as accomplished in their
research agenda as we would like. The participants are hired
with the expectation that following the postdoc year--during
which they will receive research and mentoring support and
augment their scholarly profiles--they will enter a tenure-
track position.
Salary equity issues are being addressed directly by
the Provost, who for two years has been working directly with
the deans to first systematically identify inequities, and then
to work with the Provost to address them.
Our Workload Relief Program provides for a release
from teaching responsibilities for up to one semester following
a birth or adoption for faculty members who are the primary
caregiver for the child, and they also are eligible for a one-
year extension of their tenure clocks.
The Provost has instituted a workshop for deans and
associate deans to discuss in depth the university's
performance in the area of recruitment and retention of women
and minority faculty, and of the need to focus on and improve
in this area. This renewed focus has yielded tangible results.
Conclusion
We can no longer afford to operate according to the old status quo.
If the United States truly wants to maintain its lead in the global
scientific and engineering marketplace, then policies must be geared to
attracting and retaining the best and brightest--regardless of whether
they are male or female.
The fact that women are capable of contributing to the Nation's
scientific and engineering enterprise, but are impeded from doing so
because of gender and racial/ethnic bias and outmoded ``rules''
governing academic success is deeply troubling and embarrassing. It
also must be a call to action. All of us--faculty, university leaders,
professional and scientific societies, federal agencies and the Federal
Government--must unite to ensure that all our nation's people are
welcomed and encouraged to excel in science and engineering in our
research universities. Our nation's future depends on it.
Working Data for University of Miami Scorecard
D1--Formal Mentoring Programs for:
Undergraduates--no
Graduate Students--no
Postdoctoral Scholars--no
Pre-tenure Faculty--no
Tenured Faculty--no
D2--Provide management training or workshops with an integrated
component that addresses gender, and ethnic and racial equity for:
Undergraduates--no; informal through student groups
Graduate Students--no
Postdoctoral Scholars--no
Pre-tenure Faculty--no
Tenured Faculty--no
Department Chairs--yes
Search Committee Chairs--no
At our most recent academic leadership workshop the
Provost spoke at length with supporting data on the
university's performance in the area of recruitment and
retention of women and minority faculty, and of the need to
focus on this area.
D3--Is there a university-wide grievance policy?--No, but we have
separate policies that deal with faculty, students and staff.
D4--Does the grievance policy apply to:
Undergraduates--yes, please see:
http://www6.miami.edu/umbulletin/info/serv/ombuds.htm
Graduate Students--yes, please see:
http://www6.miami.edu/umbulletin/info/serv/ombuds.htm
Postdoctoral Scholars--yes, please see:
http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH-Main/
1,1770,13610-1;14550-3,00.html
Pre-tenure Faculty--yes, please see Section B4.10:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
Tenured Faculty--yes, please see Section B4.10:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
D5--Is there an office or person designated to grievances?--Yes; Vice
Provost for Faculty Affairs.
D6--To whom/what are sexual harassment cases brought? Vice Provost for
Faculty Affairs.
D7--What percentage of sexual harassment cases were forwarded for
action? 100 percent.
D8--Does the university have a central, written policy and budget to
allow part-time appointments for faculty:
Tenure-track--no
Tenured--no
D9--Does the university have a university-wide written policy and
budget to allow temporary relief from teaching or other modifications
of duties with no reduction in pay for faculty:
Family care--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
Personal disability--no written policy; handled
collegially
D10--Does the university have university-wide written policies
providing full or partial replacement pay:
For new biological mothers during leaves for
disability related to pregnancy and childbirth during the
academic year--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
For adoptive mothers--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
For biological fathers--yes, please see Section
C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
For adoptive fathers--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
For unmarried partners--yes, please see Section
C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
D11--Does the university have a formal pregnancy leave policy for:
Undergraduates--no
Graduate Students--no
Postdoctoral Scholars--yes, please see:
http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH-Main/
1,1770,13610-1;14652-3,00.html
Pre-tenure Faculty--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
Tenured Faculty--yes, please see Section C17.7:
https://www6.miami.edu/faculty-senate/FACULTYMANUAL07-08/
FacultyManualFall2007-08.doc
Donna E. Shalala, President of the University of Miami and former
Secretary of Health in the Clinton Administration, chaired a committee
of the National Academies that wrote the 2007 report Beyond Bias and
Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering. The report is available on-line at http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record-id=11741
Biography for Donna E. Shalala
Donna E. Shalala became Professor of Political Science and
President of the University of Miami on June 1, 2001. President Shalala
has more than 25 years of experience as an accomplished scholar,
teacher, and administrator.
Born in Cleveland, Ohio, President Shalala received her A.B. degree
in history from Western College for Women and her Ph.D. degree from The
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse
University. A leading scholar on the political economy of State and
local governments, she has also held tenured professorships at Columbia
University, the City University of New York (CUNY), and the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. She served as President of Hunter College of CUNY
from 1980 to 1987 and as Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-
Madison from 1987 to 1993.
In 1993 President Clinton appointed her U.S. Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS) where she served for eight years, becoming the
longest serving HHS Secretary in U.S. history. At the beginning of her
tenure, HHS had a budget of nearly $600 billion, which included a wide
variety of programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
Child Care and Head Start, Welfare, the Public Health Service, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). One
of the country's first Peace Corp volunteers, she served in Iran from
1962 to 1964.
As HHS Secretary, she directed the welfare reform process, made
health insurance available to an estimated 3.3 million children through
the approval of all State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP),
raised child immunization rates to the highest levels in history, led
major reforms of the FDA's drug approval process and food safety
system, revitalized the National Institutes of Health, and directed a
major management and policy reform of Medicare. At the end of her
tenure as HHS Secretary, The Washington Post described her as ``one of
the most successful government managers of modern times.'' In 2007,
President George W. Bush hand-picked Shalala to co-chair with Senator
Bob Dole the Commission on Care for Returning Wounded Warriors, to
evaluate how wounded service members transition from active duty to
civilian society.
As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she led what
was then the Nation's largest public research university. She
successfully strengthened undergraduate education, the university's
research facilities, and spearheaded the largest fund-raising drive in
Wisconsin's history. In 1992, Business Week named her one of the top
five managers in higher education.
She served in the Carter Administration as Assistant Secretary for
Public Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. In 1980, she assumed the presidency of Hunter
College of the City University of New York.
She is a Director of Gannett Co., Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc.,
and the Lennar Corporation. She also serves as a Trustee of the Henry
J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
President Shalala has more than three dozen honorary degrees and a
host of other honors, including the 1992 National Public Service Award,
the 1994 Glamour magazine Woman of the Year Award, and in 2005 was
named one of ``America's Best Leaders'' by U.S. News & World Report and
the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School
of Government. She has been elected to the Council on Foreign
Relations; National Academy of Education; the National Academy of
Public Administration; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; the
National Academy of Social Insurance; the American Academy of Political
and Social Science; and the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Dr. Olsen.
STATEMENT OF DR. KATHIE L. OLSEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Olsen. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you.
We need the strength of our nation's full diversity in our
science engineering and technological workforce, and as Dr.
Shalala said, it is vital to our nation's continuing
prosperity. There is no longer an issue of debate or lengthy
discussion. Simply put, it is critical for all of us.
I would like to begin with a little story on how I ended up
at the National Science Foundation, an agency where
inclusiveness is at the very core of our vision and our
mission. In 1986, I was a traditional faculty member, and I was
writing an invited chapter for a very important publication.
That was in the days when most of us only had DOT matrix
printers--and I don't know if you remember that. But the
secretary had the one and only crisp, laser printer that could
produce a polished manuscript. So my department chair walked in
when she and I were working on my manuscript, and he asked me
poignantly, can't you type in front of the whole department.
Now, I want to know how many men have been asked that question.
Well, I can type, and I laughed it off, but what I did is I
went in and typed a letter and printed it out on my DOT matrix
printer, to the National Science Foundation, where I had spent
time as a visiting scientist. They had recently asked me to
consider returning permanently, and I knew that my
contributions were valued there. So I used, as I said, my DOT
matrix printer to print a letter to send to NSF, and I
subsequently moved to Washington.
I want you to know that I have never forgotten that
incident--obviously, I am telling it. I am proud of the work
the National Science Foundation has done to improve the
environment in science and engineering for the entire women of
today and tomorrow and grateful for the opportunity that I have
had to contribute.
I am particularly proud that NSF is an example of the
principles that we advocate. NSF has numerous senior women in
scientific and administrative roles, serving on our advisory
committees, our committee of visitors, as reviewers and as
principal investigators on our major grants. We take the advice
of our committee on equal opportunities in science and
engineering, very seriously CEOSE--Dr. Bement and I just spent
an hour with them today. We are constantly improving in order
to stay in the forefront of inclusive management.
All of our managers and supervisors are trained in and are
held accountable for good diversity management, and our newly
instituted ongoing merit-review training for program officers
will include discussion of implicit bias, based on your report,
both its potential impact on the review processes they
shepherd, but also on their own decision-making.
I am also very proud of ADVANCE, NSF's premier funding
program, aspiring to improve the climate for women in science
and engineering enterprise. From its inception in 2001, ADVANCE
funding has gone to 58 institutions of higher education, all
different types of sizes and institutions in 36 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We know that what works
in one institution or in one place may not work for all.
Therefore, we have been careful to diversify these initial
grants to ensure that, in total, the lessons learned will have
broad applicability.
The idea behind ADVANCE is simple: sweeping intuitional
transformation is the best hope for creating truly women-
friendly environments in science and engineering. Like sleeping
giants and like my former chair and my friend, entire campuses
have been dozing on this issue. Funding targeted at individuals
within institutions simply didn't go far enough. We learned
that from our earlier programs like the research opportunities
for women and career advancement awards. We realized that what
needed was full institution-wide shakeup to bring about
concrete changes. Already, ADVANCE results are measured in an
increased number of female faculty hires, advancement towards
salary parity and other tangible progress, as you can see from
my testimony.
The new ADVANCE partnership for adaptation implementation
and dissemination, PAID, was initiated in response to our
community's identification of the growing need for the broad
distribution of ADVANCE knowledge, strategies and results. PAID
insures that ADVANCE successes can be duplicated across the
country.
In fashioning welcoming environments for women in science
and engineering, we are also fostering a better environment for
other, under-represented groups and for men as well.
Ultimately, our goal is to transform institution by
institution, the entire culture of science and engineering in
America and to be inclusive of all for the good of all.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for inviting me here today.
NSF look forward to working with you to ensure that women
continue to become leading scientists and engineers, Nobel
laureates, CEOs, presidents of major universities, cabinet
secretaries, and even Members of Congress. Our nation's future
depends upon it.
And I just want to add, I can type, and now I am about 60
words per minute. I think it was a little faster when I was
younger. And I will be happy to answer all of your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Olsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathie L. Olsen
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) role in advancing women's
participation in academic science and engineering. The NSF considers
this topic central for the continued vitality of the Nation's
scientific enterprise.
The focus on women in science and engineering constitutes a
longstanding and important component of NSF's strategic investment
portfolio. A high priority within that portfolio is broadening
participation of groups under-represented in science and engineering,
namely, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. Thus, some of
the many NSF programs aimed at broadening participation in S&E focus
specifically on women. These programs address the Learning goal in the
NSF FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's Future: to
cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering
workforce, and to expand the scientific literacy of all citizens.
Increasing the number of women at all levels of the science and
engineering academic workforce offers many benefits, including new and
diversified perspectives to drive scientific research, as well as
mentors and role models for undergraduate and graduate students that
better represent the makeup of the student body. At the National
Science Foundation, we are confident we can make an impact at the
faculty workforce level because there is no shortage of scientific
talent; women are earning doctorates in science and engineering in
increasing numbers, but are currently less likely than their male peers
to enter tenure track academic positions. For example, women have
earned 23 percent of the doctoral degrees in the physical sciences
since 1997, yet held only 14 percent of academic physical science
faculty positions in 2003.
1. Describe what NSF through ADVANCE IT has learned about the biggest
challenges and most promising solutions to achieving gender equity in
faculty recruitment, retention, and general climate in science and
engineering fields.
The most significant challenges to achieving gender equity in
academic science and engineering include:
The continuing importance of well-established
networks from which women have been excluded historically
The impact of implicit bias
The feeling of isolation when there are only a few
women in equivalent positions within academic Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) settings
Unclear hiring, tenure, and promotion policies
The ``two-body problem,'' which arises from the
finding that women scientists and engineers are more likely
than their male colleagues to have partners who are also
scientists and engineers.
Traditional networking routes used for faculty recruiting can
hinder increasing the representation of women professors in STEM
fields. Many faculty and academic leaders chairing search committees
come from male-dominated educational and professional experiences; when
they turn to their informal networks to recruit faculty talent, they
tend to create disproportionately male applicant pools. Further, when
the perception exists that qualified women are very rare, it is often
assumed that a woman candidate will not accept an offer--and so an
offer is not made.
Implicit bias in recruitment and reappointment committees also
creates a challenge to improving the representation of women in STEM
faculty positions, where committee members are not aware of their
misperception of the achievements and potential of women candidates and
colleagues. Greater service obligations placed on women faculty, such
as disproportionate participation on department committees and
undergraduate advising loads, are quite common. This is particularly
likely for a department eager to make its gender diversity visible.
Participation in these activities detracts from time available for
research activities, and colleagues frequently see performance of
service obligations as an indicator of a weak commitment to
scholarship.
Isolation is also a barrier to women. Studies have shown that
informal mentoring, which many departments rely on to assist junior
faculty, is offered less often to women than to men. In addition, fewer
opportunities are presented for the informal socializing that leads to
important academic information sharing and the building of
collaborations.
Many academic institutions do not have clear personnel policies and
practices. In these situations, information is often circulated through
informal networks, and thus is less accessible to faculty who are not a
part of the informal communication loop. This lack of clear, inclusive
communication not only leads to misinformation about policies and
procedures, but also to confusion and a greater feeling of isolation.
Unclear personnel policies can ultimately lead to mistaken career
decisions, low morale, and inequitable treatment by decision-makers who
are themselves unclear or misinformed about the policies.
There are significant barriers to the recruitment rates of women
faculty in STEM fields that can continue to be barriers to retention,
once they have been hired, which makes addressing these barriers doubly
important. For instance, there is a greater likelihood that a woman
will have a partner in an academic STEM field, and women continue to
have greater responsibility for dependent care than do men. These
realities make finding spousal employment and quality dependent care
arrangements more crucial to the recruitment of new women faculty, as
well as to the retention of women whose family situations change. When
competing for promising candidates or for the retention of faculty
members, industrial employment opportunities may offer significantly
improved possibilities than academia for women's spousal placement and/
or dependent care arrangements.
Potential solutions to these and other challenges have been
developed by awardees of NSF's ADVANCE-Institutional Transformation
Program, which began in 2001. Institutional transformation occurs
through a top down, bottom up approach: when a committed senior
leadership establishes policies that enhance the recruitment and
retention of women and an institutional commitment to diversity, in
cooperation with the individual members of the institution who initiate
and incorporate change in their daily practice. The ADVANCE program
will begin a multi-year program-level evaluation in 2008 in order to
document the efficacy of the project level solutions that have been
developed and implemented at the ADVANCE grantee sites. We know
anecdotally that peer institutions, that have not received funding from
ADVANCE, have adopted many of the solutions developed by ADVANCE
Institutional Transformation grantees and we expect the program level
evaluation will demonstrate this to be true.
ADVANCE awardees have become national leaders in the development of
training experiences for department chairs, deans, recruitment
committees, and tenure and promotion committees. Evidence indicates
that awareness of research findings on implicit bias (one common focus
of such trainings) has a significant impact on an individual's future
decision-making. For example, those that evaluate faculty and write
letters of reference for students become more cognizant of the impact
of using gendered language (excitable vs. passionate) to describe an
individual and their academic potential. Other initiatives focus on the
development of mentoring programs, with training for people on both
sides of the mentoring relationship.
Institutional changes have occurred with policies that ensure more
thorough development of candidate pools, review of national information
on the availability of candidates from diverse groups, and procedures
that build in the use of effective approaches to successful
recruitment. Many examples can be found by browsing individual awardee
websites (http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/itwebsites.jsp). In the
case of ADVANCE at Hunter College in New York, women accounted for only
27 percent of new hires in the natural sciences before the Gender
Equity Project, but from 2003 to 2006, after significant institutional
change, women accounted for 61 percent of new hires.
Policy changes aimed specifically at work-family challenges
include: allowing or automatically initiating a tenure-clock stop for
faculty with new children or other emergent family obligations such as
elder care. For example, Virginia Tech, a recipient of an ADVANCE
grant, recently initiated part-time tenure track positions to better
suit the long-term work-family arrangements of some faculty. Columbia
University, another ADVANCE institution, is offering small grants to
faculty for the additional child care costs that arise when traveling
to professional meetings.
2. What is NSF doing to broadly disseminate and encourage best
practices identified through ADVANCE?
In order to disseminate information, we employ two main strategies:
the strategic design of the ADVANCE program itself, and the NSF's
leadership role in the scientific community.
The ADVANCE program has evolved from its start in 2001. Our
approach is to build upon what we have learned about institutional
transformation and increased participation of women in academic STEM
careers. Proposals for new institutional transformation grants are
required to incorporate lessons learned from current ADVANCE grantees
as well as relevant social science research. This ensures that new
grantees do not use time and resources reinventing the basics of
institutional transformation. Instead, they build on what has been
learned and use that to further innovate, contributing to our increased
understanding of institutional change.
It is important to recognize that best practices and effective
policies will differ depending on the type of institution. One of the
great strengths of ADVANCE is that we have institutional transformation
grants in a wide diversity of institutions, from public to private,
small to large, primarily undergraduate to research intensive, and
different levels of selectivity. To further our goal of greater
dissemination of successful strategies from this wide variety of
institutions, we established the Partnerships for Adaptation,
Implementation and Dissemination (PAID) component of ADVANCE in 2006.
Some PAID awardees are disseminating best practices through regional or
national training. For example, the University of Wisconsin ADVANCE-
PAID program provides training for teams from colleges and universities
on ways to increase the hiring of women into STEM faculty positions.
The University of Washington's ADVANCE-PAID provides leadership
training workshops for STEM department chairs to improve their
departmental climate. The workshops integrate issues of diversity
throughout the meeting instead of holding a separate session on gender
and minority issues. This ensures that diversity becomes an integral
part of the everyday management and decision-making process.
ADVANCE Institutional Transformation awardees have developed a rich
variety of materials that are available through their websites and the
ADVANCE-IT web portal. For example, the ``ADEPT'' website at Georgia
Tech is designed to train individual promotion and tenure committee
members by utilizing an interactive training experience about the
implicit biases that often interfere with gender equitable decision-
making.
In addition, both PAID and IT awardees disseminate best practices
at disciplinary conferences and at conferences for college and
university leaders. Some PAID awards support groups of women in a
particular STEM discipline nationally or within a region. PAID awardees
disseminate best practices (such as effective mentoring) through
meetings held concurrently with larger disciplinary conferences, and
through the development of web-based alliances.
For the research communities that look to NSF and other federal
agencies to support their work: along with the National Institutes of
Health and the Department of Energy, we have co-sponsored a national
workshop focused on gender equity for the department chairs of fifty
major chemistry departments and another for the department chairs of
fifty major physics departments.
At the request of the NSF Division of Chemistry, the University of
Michigan ADVANCE IT grantee developed a brief training about implicit
bias. The Chemistry Division at NSF has received training on this topic
and it is now implemented at all Chemistry Division ``panels'' (groups
of experts who meet together to review and make funding recommendations
for proposals in their field). Through this effort in the Chemistry
Division, hundreds of peer reviewers will be trained each year and will
return to their home institutions with a new understanding of the ways
that implicit bias diminishes equity in decision-making. Dissemination
to other units in NSF is underway, including mandatory program officer
training on implicit bias during the merit review process.
3. In addition to activities already described, what else can NSF and
other agencies do to promote a more favorable environment for women in
academic science and engineering fields?
Commitment to this goal must be reflected broadly across the
organization and at every level within the organization. At NSF, the
commitment to workplace diversity and enhancing opportunities for women
and other under-represented minorities in STEM fields is prominently
reflected in both our Strategic Plan and in our practice. In the senior
leadership, besides myself, there are two female Assistant Directors,
and the agency Inspector General is also a woman. We make it a priority
to ensure that women are well represented at all levels throughout the
scientific and support staff, on our advisory committees, our
committees of visitors, and among our reviewers. To further focus
attention on this important subject, our Committee on Equal
Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) advises us on how well
we are doing and where we could do better.
The Science and Technology Equal Opportunities Act of 1980
authorizes the NSF to make awards to encourage the education,
employment, and training of women in science and technology. This
testimony discusses several such awards, including, of course, the
entire ADVANCE program. Additionally, I want to emphasize that in all
our grants policies and practices, NSF is committed to the fair
inclusion of women, and indeed, has been successful in maintaining a
high standard. The 2005 Rand study ``Gender Differences in Major
External Federal Grant Programs'' found that, at NSF, there were no
gender differences in the amount of grant funding requested or awarded.
Additionally, our recent internal study on the Impact of Proposal and
Award Management Mechanisms found that women and minorities have also
not suffered disproportionately in the recent overall reductions in
proposal funding rate. Within the Foundation, both the Biology and the
Social and Behavioral Sciences Directorates have implemented practices
to ensure women's participation in numbers appropriate to their
representation in the field in all conferences, meetings, workshops,
and international congresses for which those directorates provides
funds.
Part of NSF's role as a leader in the scientific community is the
communication of the importance of broadening the participation of
women and other under-represented groups such as minorities and persons
with disabilities in the science and engineering enterprise.
Internally, this is communicated on an on-going basis through training
opportunities and seminars. NSF has recently instituted a new
requirement for on-going training in merit review for program officers.
One goal of this training will be to ensure that the peer review
process is free from the influence of implicit bias and to ensure
agency staff are aware of the potential impact of implicit bias in
their own decision-making. An example of how NSF leads the external
community can be found in the most recent solicitation for chemistry-
related instrumentation acquisitions, which requires a departmental
plan for broadening participation as an addendum to each proposal. This
demonstrates to the scientific community that NSF takes diversity
seriously.
Finally, because of the global nature of the scientific enterprise
and the growing importance of international scientific collaboration we
see an international leadership role for NSF based on what has come
from the ADVANCE IT sites. Dr. Bement and I, together with the
Assistant Directors and leaders from the Directorate for Education and
Human Resources have been actively participating in international
meetings, bringing the lessons learned at NSF and from ADVANCE grantees
to a global audience. We believe that NSF's international role in
women's increased participation in academic science and engineering is
in its early stages; we envision it expanding significantly through
continued institutional commitment at NSF and through the ADVANCE
Program.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before
you today on this extremely important topic.
As you are well aware, NSF research and education efforts
contribute to the Nation's innovation economy and help keep America at
the forefront of science and engineering. At the same time, NSF
supported researchers produce leading edge discoveries that can serve
society and spark the public's curiosity and interest. Discoveries
coming from dozens of NSF programs and initiatives are enriching the
entire science and engineering enterprise, and making education fun,
exciting and achievement-oriented.
NSF is committed to cultivating a science and engineering
enterprise that not only unlocks the mysteries of the universe, but
that also addresses the challenges of America and the world. To echo
the findings of the NAS Beyond Bias and Barriers report, our nation
cannot afford to neglect the lack of women in STEM careers. In order to
preserve our competitive edge, we are firmly committed to aggressively
pursuing and offering opportunities for everyone within the STEM
enterprise--women and men.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief
overview conveys to you the extent of NSF's commitment to advancing
science and technology in the national interest. I look forward to
continue working with you, and would be happy to respond to any
questions that you have.
Biography for Kathie L. Olsen
Dr. Kathie L. Olsen became Deputy Director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in August 2005.
She joined NSF from the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President, where she was the
Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science and responsible for
overseeing science and education policy including physical sciences,
life sciences, environmental science, and behavioral and social
sciences.
Prior to the OSTP post, she served as the Chief Scientist at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (May 1999-April
2002) and the Acting Associate Administrator for the new Enterprise in
Biological and Physical Research (July 2000-March 2002). As NASA Chief
Scientist, she served not only as the Administrator's senior scientific
advisor and principal interface with the national and international
scientific community but also was the principal advisor to the
Administrator on budget content of the scientific programs.
Before joining NASA in May 1999, Dr. Olsen was the Senior Staff
Associate for the Science and Technology Centers in the NSF Office of
Integrative Activities. From February 1996 until November 1997, she was
a Brookings Institute Legislative Fellow and then an NSF detail in the
Office of Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. Preceding her work on
Capitol Hill, she served for two years as Acting Deputy Director for
the Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience at the NSF, where
she has worked and held numerous other science-related positions.
Dr. Olsen received her B.S. with honors from Chatham College,
Pittsburgh, Pa., majoring in both biology and psychology and was
elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her Ph.D. in Neuroscience at the
University of California, Irvine. She was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the
Department of Neuroscience at Children's Hospital of Harvard Medical
School. Subsequently at SUNY-Stony Brook she was both a Research
Scientist at Long Island Research Institute and Assistant Professor in
the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Medical
School. Her research on neural and genetic mechanisms underlying
development and expression of behavior was supported by the National
Institutes of Health.
Her awards include the NSF Director's Superior Accomplishment
Award; the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society Award; the
Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology Award for outstanding
contributions in research and education; the Barry M. Goldwater
Educator Award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics-National Capital Section; the Barnard Medal of
Distinction, which is the college's most significant recognition of
individuals for demonstrated excellence in conduct of their lives and
careers; and the NASA's Outstanding Leadership Medal. She has also
received honorary degrees from Chatham College, Clarkson University,
and University of South Carolina.
Chairman Baird. I think 60 words a minute is faster than my
old DOT matrix printer used to print.
Dr. Hrabowski.
STATEMENT OF DR. FREEMAN A. HRABOWSKI, III, PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY
Dr. Hrabowski. I should start by saying, as I look at the
quote ``where there is no vision, the people perish,'' my own
vision is to see an African American one day at the Nobel
laureate level in science, an African American woman.
The most important point I can make today, as I am PI, is
that the under-representation is not a women's issue. It is an
American issue. Just as we have been able to make substantial
progress on our campus, the fact is that it is not a minority
issue that we are talking about.
As I talk, I want you to think about this parallelism
between what happens with women and what happens with
minorities, and what we have learned is that the success we
have had in producing minorities in science has been a great
foundation for producing----
Chairman Baird. Your microphone.
Dr. Hrabowski. Sorry.
Chairman Baird. You speak so eloquently and loudly, we
didn't even notice.
Dr. Hrabowski. Big mouth. I come from Birmingham. We do
that. The fact is that, as I think about it, the truth of the
matter is that our successes come because we look at
institutional change, first, from the perspective of the
performance of African Americans on our campus in science, and
we are now leading the country in producing Blacks who go on to
actually earn Ph.D.s.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appended for the record by Dr. Freeman Hrabowski, III. ``UMBC
is recognized as the Nation's leading predominantly white university
for producing African American undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s
in science and engineering.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The success at the advanced level is especially
significant. Let me give you one statistic: we have had a 48-
percent increase in the number of women faculty in tenure-track
positions since the beginning of the ADVANCE grant. Now, in
comparison, we have had only a four-percent increase in the
male faculty size. Now, in terms of the base, we have gone from
29 to 43 women, and for men, from 137 to 142. We know for a
fact that that increase has everything to do with practices and
policies that have been changed as a result of the NSF ADVANCE
grant.
Most important, we have been working to change the culture
of the institution. Let me just give you several of the most
important points of culture change for us. Having the ability
to conduct ongoing discussions with people, with chairs, with
senior faculty with deans, and with others has been very
important. Most critically, having the change to listen to the
voices of those women--if you think about what Donna Shalala
said about perceptions and biases, well, it is important to
hear the voices of both men and women. To some people's
surprise, they were very different in the way they thought
about the climate in their environment.
Interestingly enough, usually junior men though more
similarly to women. Senior men tended to say things were okay,
and so the challenge was to--and the big challenge--and we can
talk about this later--is to help the climate, to foster a
climate in which people can say what they really think without
being criticized or censured, to not have people thinking that
because a woman talks about family issues that she is not a
serious scientist, and to think about ways of developing
policies that can help both men and women because we don't want
backlash, which is the same issue you face with minorities,
because what have learned is things that help minority students
in science can help students, in general in science. Many of
the practices that can help junior women can help junior men.
So clarity of expectation, looking at the pathways that are
expected for those people, ongoing discussions of faculty
development plan for every faculty member, women and men,
something we have done for all, family leave policy is much
more flexible than what the State had talked about. Sometimes
it may be a faculty member who has problems with a sick parent.
Other cases, it may be about a child, so you never know. So the
idea is much more flexibility there, but robust and honest
discussions about the issues without people becoming defensive.
It is amazing how defensive people can become if you can't
build that trust.
And the most important point from my perspective is
thinking about how to the get the faculty buy-in. The power
rests in the hands of white males, and I don't say that to be
negative, to be disparaging. It is a fact. The point is how we
pull them into that, and what has made the difference on our
campus in terms of producing minority scientist, in terms of
increasing the number of women going on and moving up the
ladder has been just that, getting the guys on board, having
them understand that mentoring is what the old boy network is
all about. We just want everybody to have that kind of
networking possibility.
The most important thing that people can do is keep
building on these practices to give people incentives to ensure
that many more institutions look at themselves in the mirror.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hrabowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Freeman A. Hrabowski, III
UMBC as a National Model: The University as Mentor
My campus colleagues and I see the issue of advancing women and
minorities in science and engineering as an issue about which all
Americans should be concerned. Consequently, when we were considering
the opportunity to apply for a National Science Foundation (NSF)
ADVANCE grant, we concluded that I should serve as the Principal
Investigator (PI) to emphasize the importance of this initiative to the
entire campus and also the importance of men becoming more
knowledgeable about the challenges women scientists and engineers face
in the academy.
UMBC (the University of Maryland, Baltimore County) is recognized
as a national leader in supporting and advancing women and under-
represented minority (URM) students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We are a public research
university, emphasizing graduate programs in the sciences, engineering,
and public policy, and building on a strong undergraduate liberal arts
and sciences core. We enroll more than 12,000 students (9,500
undergraduate and 2,500 graduate), employ approximately 550 full-time
faculty, and receive $85 million in external support annually for
research-and-training contracts and grants. We are distinctive because
of our demonstrated record of achieving diversity and excellence,
particularly in science and engineering. It was especially gratifying
when a recent New York Times editorial recognized UMBC for ``rocking
the house when it comes to the increasingly critical mission of turning
American college students into scientists.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stapes, Brent, ``Why American College Student Hate Science,''
The New York Times, May 25, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producing well-prepared scientists and engineers for our
increasingly diverse workforce is perhaps our most important and
lasting contribution to the Nation's economic development and national
security. Thousands of Maryland's physicians, scientists, engineers,
information technology (IT) workers, policy-makers, and other STEM
professionals are among UMBC alumni. The National Security Agency
(NSA), for example, employs hundreds of UMBC math and computer science
graduates. We rank third nationally (based on NSF data\2\ ) in the
number of computer science and IT degrees awarded and have been
designated a Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance by
the NSA. The campus has twice received the U.S. Presidential Award for
Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Science Foundation, WebCASPAR Integrated Science and
Engineering Resources Data System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMBC has become a national model for diversity at a time when both
the Nation is focused intensely on securing and strengthening its
position in the global economy, and America's demographic profile is
shifting dramatically. Our student body is among the most diverse
nationally (40 percent minority, including 21 percent Asian, 15 percent
African American, and four percent Hispanic and Native American).
Particularly noteworthy are data from the American Society of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) showing that UMBC ranked
first nationally in total number of undergraduate biochemistry degrees
awarded to African Americans in 2004-2005 (18 degrees). (The ASBMB also
ranked UMBC seventh nationally in overall biochemistry degree
production, with 63 degrees, and fourth nationally in the total number
of biochemistry degrees awarded to Asian Americans, with 23 degrees.)
Overall, we are recognized as the Nation's leading predominantly white
university for producing African American undergraduates who go on to
earn Ph.D.s in science and engineering.
With the support of our NSF ADVANCE grant, we have used our success
in producing minority scientists and engineers, particularly those
involving women of color, to develop mentoring initiatives designed to
increase the participation of women faculty in STEM fields and to
advance them through the faculty ranks and into leadership positions.
This comprehensive ``university as mentor'' \3\ approach is designed to
embed focused, continuous support of women scientists at all levels--
undergraduate and graduate students and faculty throughout the ranks--
into the fabric and foundation of the university's culture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bass, S., Rutledge, J.C., Douglass, E.R., Carter, W.Y., ``The
University as Mentor: Lessons Learned from UMBC Inclusiveness
Initiatives,'' Council of Graduate Schools, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framing Success for Women Faculty in STEM
The small numbers of women faculty in STEM is a long-standing
national problem. A 2005 study shows that women faculty in the top 50
research universities are under-represented at all ranks, especially as
full professors. The study also reveals that under-represented minority
women ``are almost non-existent in science and engineering departments
at research universities'' and are less likely than Caucasian women, or
men of any race, to be awarded tenure or reach full professor
status.\4\ The UMBC ADVANCE Program uses a comprehensive approach based
on lessons learned in producing minority scientists to meet these
challenges. Our framework includes (1) developing, revising, and
institutionalizing policies and practices, and allocating resources, in
ways that support the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of women--
including particularly minority women--for the faculty at all ranks;
(2) engaging the campus broadly in ongoing discussions, informal and
formal, that address issues of racial and gender diversity in STEM
fields; and (3) establishing a system of targeted mentoring programs
designed to create a clear and understandable pathway for STEM women to
achieve tenure and promotion, and to transition to academic leadership
positions at the university.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nelson, D.J., Rogers, D.C., ``A National Analysis of Diversity
in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities,''
National Science Foundation, January, 2005.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Since the inception of the ADVANCE Program at UMBC, the number of
female tenure-track faculty has increased 48 percent from fall 2003
(N=29) to fall 2007 (N=43) compared to a four percent increase in male
tenure-track faculty (fall 2003 N=137, fall 2007 N=142). Additionally,
with the support offered through ADVANCE, the numbers of STEM women at
the assistant professor and associate professor ranks have increased
substantially--assistant professors by 58 percent (fall 2003 N=12, fall
2006 N=19); associate professors by 33 percent (fall 2003 N=12, fall
2006 N=16); full professors by 40 percent (fall 2003 N=5, fall 2007
N=7). These outcomes reflect the university's determination to make
progress in this area coupled with constituency education activities
and changes in policies and practices that the campus has implemented
over the course of the ADVANCE Program at UMBC.
Supporting Minority Achievement in STEM: Applying Lessons Learned to
the Structural Components of ADVANCE at UMBC
It is difficult to understand and appreciate fully the challenges
that women and minorities face in the sciences and engineering. Until
quite recently, American higher education was relatively silent about
these challenges--not simply because there was a lack of understanding
about the issues, but also because of the discomfort many experienced
when discussing issues having to do with gender and race. Today,
however, there is growing recognition among leaders in the science
community--at NSF and other agencies, for example--of the need to
understand these challenges and address them though such initiatives as
ADVANCE. Much of the work of our ADVANCE grant is based on our success
over the past two decades in producing minority scientists and
engineers though our Meyerhoff Scholars Program. What we have learned
about institutional transformation--including culture change, the need
for mentoring, and the importance of creating a strong sense of
community--has made it possible for us to have the conversations
necessary to address these challenges. These conversations have engaged
faculty, students, and campus leaders, and have been instrumental in
building trust, creating community, and focusing on the facts about the
serious under-representation of women in STEM.
Preparing and Educating the Campus at All Levels
One successful strategy for developing a culture of inclusion for
women faculty has been a campus-wide Distinguished Speaker Series,
spotlighting the contributions of top women research scientists and
focusing on issues that women faculty in STEM face in the academy.
Modeling success, especially the achievements of top minority women
scientists, provides a compelling demonstration of diversity and
excellence for the entire campus. The distinguished speakers also give
a special seminar on their research at the departmental level to
highlight targeted impact on the field.
We have worked to engage all levels of campus administration and
each STEM department in developing and implementing ADVANCE
initiatives. Chairs and Deans Meetings are held at least once a
semester to focus on progress and challenges. These meetings provide a
regular forum for education and debate about best practices and
highlight departmental success in creating supportive work climates for
women. Outside experts regularly present current research to the Chairs
and Deans on gender issues in science and engineering, with special
attention to the particular experiences of minority women faculty.
Chairs also raise issues based on their own efforts to affect
departmental climate change and advance women and minority faculty in
their departments. The STEM departments are further involved with
ADVANCE through Faculty Liaisons, an initiative that includes nine and
female faculty members, one from each STEM department, who serve as
advocates for the ADVANCE program within their departments. In
addition, individual meetings among each Chair and the ADVANCE Director
and Lead Co-PI focus on providing targeted information for the
department and identifying ways the program could most effectively
support their faculty. Finally, through its ADVANCE Excellence Awards,
the program regularly recognizes the contributions of individuals
(including administrators and Chairs) to the success of women in STEM.
Recruiting and Supporting Minority Women in STEM
UMBC is committed to creating an environment of support and success
that is attractive to the Nation's top prospective women and minority
faculty in STEM. Accordingly, the Provost requires all departments
planning to conduct a faculty search to submit a written Faculty
Diversity Recruitment Plan for attracting a broad and diverse pool of
applicants. This requirement is coupled with annual training on
diversity recruitment presented by the Provost, Lead Co-PI, Director of
Human Relations, and Senior Associate Dean of the Graduate School.
Additional guidance is provided to departments by their respective
Dean. Special attention is given to strategies and techniques for
attracting applications from women and minority candidates and
demonstrating a culture of inclusion to all candidates who visit
campus. All female candidates for STEM faculty positions meet with
faculty from WISE (our chapter of Women In Science and Engineering) and
with representatives of the ADVANCE Program to make them aware of the
resources and support available at UMBC. All male and female candidates
meet with the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, who discusses support
for balancing work and family issues, including information about
UMBC's Family Support Policy and flexible tenure timelines for family
and medical leave. In addition, the campus leadership (including the
President, in his role as ADVANCE PI) is available to candidates to
discuss these issues. The ADVANCE Research Assistantships for Chairs
help STEM departments in successfully recruiting new women STEM faculty
by offering one-year research assistantships which are added to the
recruitment packages for these candidates.
Mentoring Minority Women for Success in STEM
Demonstrating a clear and successful path to promotion and tenure
is central to the work of our ADVANCE Program. The Faculty Horizons
Program was created with support from ADVANCE to help participants
become successful faculty members in STEM, with particular attention
focused on attracting women from under-represented groups. This
initiative builds on lessons learned through the undergraduate and
graduate Meyerhoff bridge program experience, and our Graduate Horizons
Program.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This intensive two-and-a-half-day workshop focuses on mentoring.
The program targets senior-level graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows, particularly women interested in becoming tenured STEM
faculty. The workshop has been held annually since 2003 and has
attracted 252 participants, including 237 women, 118 of whom have been
under-represented minority. Our Faculty Horizons Program receives more
than 250 applications for each of its annual workshops and has been
duplicated at Virginia Tech and Rice University.
The Eminent Scholar Program facilitates mentoring relationships
between all new female STEM faculty and prominent researchers in their
fields. This relationship is tailored to meet the specific needs of the
junior scholar based on how effectively she has been mentored up to
that point. ADVANCE also works closely with the WISE group on campus,
an informal university network of STEM women, including a number of
women of color, which meets monthly to provide a community of exchange
and support. Before the ADVANCE initiative, the WISE group initiated an
informal exchange of mentoring information through its monthly
meetings. ADVANCE has expanded to develop this informal mentoring
activity into a formal Faculty ADVANCEment Workshop Series, providing
monthly workshops for all STEM faculty members on topics related to the
tenure process, grant writing, resource negotiations, departmental
politics, press relations, work/family issues, effective communication,
and lab management.
Through ADVANCE, we also have learned a great deal about some of
the special challenges women in STEM fields face, particularly minority
women, because of the numerous campus and community demands that are
made on their time. Maintaining a productive research agenda is one
such challenge, and to avoid attrition of minority women from doctoral
programs and academic positions, institutions need to be supportive of
these promising scholars and help to protect their research agendas as
they move toward either completing their doctorates or achieving
promotion and tenure. In this connection, the ADVANCE Research
Assistantship Program for Current Faculty provides competitively
awarded funding for a research assistant (RA) to female and male
faculty who actively support the advancement of women and minorities in
STEM fields. These RA awards are intended to support associate
professors who are close to promotion, compensate for high service
loads, and serve as bridge money for faculty between grants. Further
support is available through the ADVANCE Faculty Sponsorship Committee,
consisting of senior men and women faculty, which identifies and
advises STEM women as they approach important milestones in their
academic careers. The Committee offers guidance to STEM women about
dossier preparation, balancing research and service obligations, and
developing effective teaching portfolios as they anticipate third-year
review or tenure with promotion. Together, these activities create a
web of support that helps to guide women on a clearly defined path to
success.
``Not Going It Alone''
``My soul was hungry for support.'' These are the words that Dr.
Kristi Pullen, a brilliant young African American women and former
Meyerhoff Scholar, wrote to me two years ago as she contemplated her
future after earning her Ph.D. in biochemistry at one of the Nation's
leading research universities. She had performed superbly in her
doctoral program, solving protein structures using x-ray
crystallography. But Dr. Pullen seriously considered leaving science
for policy work in response to the profound sense of isolation she had
experienced during her graduate studies. At this critical point in her
career, reflecting on what ``going it alone'' had meant to her, Dr.
Pullen concluded, ``I had all but completely given up on the idea of
going into bench science [and] didn't particularly want to engage in it
any longer. I have found this road to be a particularly lonely one, and
I couldn't see myself walking it anymore.'' Fortunately, Kristi has
remained in science, in part because of the support and encouragement
she received from my colleagues.
Moving forward, though, it's important to ask ourselves how can we
create a culture of inclusion and a community of support to encourage
talented minority women like Kristi Pullen to thrive as scientists and
engineers in our universities? A university's institutional culture
reflects its values, and inclusive academic cultures promote the
advancement of women in STEM fields by identifying and addressing
institutional barriers to success wherever they exist, and by
cultivating a community of support. A culture of inclusion provides
visible leadership and attends to climate and attitudes in all sectors
of the campus--engaging faculty, administrators, staff, and students. A
community of support listens carefully to the voices of women
scientists, including women of color, and maintains a climate of
openness that encourages the expression of wide-ranging views without
concern of censure. Inclusion, in this sense, captures more than just a
sense of possibility. Inclusion encourages an environment of high
expectation and support, provides clear pathways to advancement,
establishes best practices in mentoring, develops viable networks and
communities of shared interests, prepares women to contribute to
society as top researchers, and, in so doing, strengthens the
experience for all faculty.
Biography for Freeman A. Hrabowski, III
Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, has served as President of UMBC (The
University of Maryland, Baltimore County) since May, 1992. His research
and publications focus on science and math education, with special
emphasis on minority participation and performance.
He serves as a consultant to the National Science Foundation, the
National Institutes of Health, and universities and school systems
nationally. He also sits on several corporate and civic boards.
Examples include the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, Constellation Energy Group, the France-Merrick Foundation,
Marguerite Casey Foundation (Chair), McCormick & Company, Inc.,
Mercantile Safe Deposit & Trust Company, and the Urban Institute.
Examples of recent awards or honors include election to the
American Academy of Arts & Sciences and the American Philosophical
Society; receiving the prestigious McGraw Prize in Education, the U.S.
Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Mentoring, and the Columbia University Teachers College
Medal for Distinguished Service; being named a Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and Marylander of the Year
by the editors of the Baltimore Sun; and being listed among Fast
Company magazine's first ``Fast 50 Champions of Innovation'' in
business and technology. He also holds a number of honorary degrees,
including most recently from Princeton University, Duke University, the
University of Illinois, the University of Alabama-Birmingham, Gallaudet
University, Goucher College, the Medical University of South Carolina,
and Binghamton University.
He has co-authored two books, Beating the Odds and Overcoming the
Odds (Oxford University Press), focusing on parenting and high-
achieving African American males and females in science. Both books are
used by universities, school systems, and community groups around the
country.
A child-leader in the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Hrabowski was
prominently featured in Spike Lee's 1997 documentary, Four Little
Girls, on the racially motivated bombing in 1963 of Birmingham's
Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.
Born in 1950 in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Hrabowski graduated at 19
from Hampton Institute with highest honors in mathematics. At the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, he received his M.A.
(mathematics) and four years later his Ph.D. (higher education
administration/statistics) at age 24.
Chairman Baird. That buzzer is the Pavlovian way of telling
Vern and the rest of us and myself that we have got to go vote
in about 15 minutes. We will have time, actually, for the rest
of the testimony, and then we will have to adjourn briefly, or
recess briefly and then come back to ask some questions.
It is outstanding testimony so far. We will surely want to
come back. So Dr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF DR. MYRON CAMPBELL, CHAIR, PHYSICS DEPARTMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member
Ehlers for inviting me here to talk about this issue which is
very important to me. I am the Chair of the Physics Department
at the University of Michigan, and in this role, I have become
much more aware of the hurdles, in spite of our best
intentions, women have to overcome in order to be able to fully
participate in careers in science and technology. As other
members have said, we need all of our talents to move forward.
In your opening statements, you mentioned that in STEM
fields, women comprise about 18 percent of the senior faculty,
and in physics, I am sorry to say, it is worse. It is about
five percent, probably one of the lowest. The physical sciences
have many stages between student and practitioner that people
have to go through, undergraduate, graduate, post-doc,
assistant professor and so on, and it was pointed out there is
a disproportionate attrition at every single stage.
Consequently, the fraction of women who become full
professions, as it is, is now about four percent.
And in trying to understand these issues and how to work on
addressing these issues, I have come to four key understandings
about the problems. And as you have just said, the first one is
all of us have a responsibility to remove the barriers and
effect change. I was at faculty meeting when this topic came
up, and all heads turned towards the few women who were in the
faculty meeting, saying what are you going to do about this
issue. And it is not their responsibility. It is all of our
responsibilities to work on this.
Second, there is not a single, magic-bullet solution that
is going to fix this. There are going to be many small steps
required to be taken to address this issue.
Thirdly, it is not just about the numbers. It is not just
the five percent or the 18 percent. It is about the climate and
it about how women are treated. I would like to share with you
an anecdote. I am going to follow your DOT matrix story. When I
became chair, one of the things I looked into was a--what
written records we had about how the women in our department
were treated. And one of the first things I did as the new
chair was to go to everyone and apologize on behalf of the
department for things that had happened to them that I though,
if that had happened to me, I would have quit. Truly, there are
many issues like this that come up, so the climate is very
important.
And finally, all of the things that we value in our physics
department, our first-rate research, our excellence in
teaching, our community outreach, all of this is being placed
at risk by us not dealing with these climate issues.
Many of the other comments I had were the same--I want to
talk about some of the impact, specifically, that ADVANCE has
had in how we conduct our business in the physics department.
One of the key things is understanding better how to do
searches for new faculty. And many different aspects come into
play here.
One is an understanding of how to read letters of
recommendations. And once I looked at that a little bit and
went back and looked at letters of recommendation from people
that I know do know better, there is a lot of bias, still, in
the letters of recommendation that has to be stripped away
before you can accurately evaluate a candidate. The second
thing is that we need to have a large pool of candidates. We
cannot do a narrow search where we are looking in a field that
may only have two or three candidates per year in the whole
country. We need to look broadly.
Implementing these solutions over the last four years, the
numbers of offers we have been making have gone equally to men
and women. Unfortunately, the acceptance ratio to Michigan for
those offers has not been that. And that caused me to say,
well, we now have to turn our attention towards what do we need
to do to bring more women to the stage of being able to apply
for faculty positions. And that is going to bring me briefly to
my recommendations.
One is encourage NSF to continue the ADVANCE program. It is
been extraordinarily valuable. The second is I would also
encourage NSF or other funding agencies to provide post-
doctoral fellowships in the same way that they provide graduate
fellowships. The key thing here is it changes the way in which
the post-docs are selected. Currently, we are still in the
model of selecting post-docs by looking at only a handful. By
having a national competition for post-doctoral fellowships, we
will have a broadened pool, and we can try to accomplish there
what we have done with selecting our faculty.
And the third thing is a new awareness that scientists are
now having babies, and our rules for doing such things--we have
already mentioned this. For example, the American Physical
Society is now offering grants to allow women with infants or
small children to attend conferences, pay for daycare while
they are there. These are small grants. They are $200. And if
anyone thinks that taking a baby along to a conference is a
luxury--but agencies cannot do this. They cannot support this,
either in direct or indirect costs, because of the 821 Rule, so
in my written testimony, I have specific recommendations for
which 821 Rule should be modified to remove this particular
prohibition.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myron Campbell
Introduction
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. It is an
honor for me to be able to contribute to the discussion of women in
physics, and talk about the necessity of removing barriers to allow any
member of our society to contribute to our nation's real and pressing
needs in science and technology.
I joined the University of Michigan in September 1989 as an
Assistant Professor. Prior to coming to Michigan I worked eight years
at the University of Chicago, and prior to that I was a graduate
student at Yale University. I was promoted to Associate Professor after
three years and to Professor in 1998. My area of research is High
Energy Physics and I am co-author on over 300 scientific papers, mostly
with the CDF collaboration. I was appointed Chair of the Physics
Department in 2004.
Women in Physics
My own appreciation of the issues of women in physics and some of
the barriers came about four years ago during an unsuccessful attempt
to hire a female assistant professor. During this process I became
aware that the issue was about more than just the number of female
faculty; that there were real barriers and biases which made it more
difficult for talented women to participate in science.
Activities at Michigan
Three and a half years ago I was appointed the Chair of the Physics
Department. Shortly after becoming Chair I invited the Committee on the
Status of Women in Physics (CSWP)\1\, a committee of the American
Physical Society (APS), to conduct a site visit to assess the climate
for women in our department. Over the last seventeen years CSWP has
visited and evaluated over forty institutions. The overall assessment
from the site visit report was that the climate at Michigan for women
in physics needs serious improvement. There were several key points
from the report I have used to understand how to proceed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.aps.org/programs/women/index.cfm
It is not the responsibility of the women in the
Department to effect change. Improvements will have to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
driven by the combined efforts of the senior faculty.
Problems exist at all levels and areas, and there is
not a single solution or `magic bullet.' Improvements will come
from a large number of modest accomplishments.
It's not just about the numbers. A major problem is
the climate and how the women are treated. Bringing in
additional female faculty must be accompanied by improving the
climate.
All of the Department's accomplishments--first rate
research programs, excellent undergraduate and graduate
education, and successful community outreach--are placed at
risk by climate issues.
With these points in mind, we took specific steps to improve the
environment for undergraduate students through renovation of our
introductory courses and providing student-led study sessions for
advanced courses. We are more closely monitoring the graduate students,
and taking early intervention for students who might otherwise drop out
of the program. We have changed some of the graduate program
requirements to reduce the stress graduate students feel, without
reducing our standards. We have taken steps to improve the climate for
female faculty. We have also modified the way we conduct searches for
new faculty--searches are now open across all sub-fields of physics
represented in the department.\2\ This change has resulted in our
department making offers to nine women over the last four years,
although, only one accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Advertisement in Physics Today, September 2007, page 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of this effort has been through Departmental and University
initiative and support, along with support from funding agencies for
programs such as ADVANCE. To increase the number of women in faculty
ranks it is necessary to increase the number of women participating at
all levels which lead to careers in science--high school, undergraduate
education, graduate school, and postdoctoral positions. A key area of
difficulty is the postdoctoral position, the transition from graduate
student to assistant professor. One of the ways to create diversity in
the workplace is to create a broad pool of applicants. The current
practice for hiring postdocs runs counter to this--often a faculty
member will select a postdoc from only a few candidates, since the work
the postdoc is required to do is narrowly defined. The few institutions
which have privately funded postdoctoral fellowships (Chicago, Caltech,
Princeton, Berkeley, Harvard, MIT) are able to draw a large application
pool, and have been successful at bringing in a talented and diverse
group of postdocs.
I attended a workshop on gender equity\3\ held by the American
Physical Society in May, 2006 where I shared some of my experiences
with chairs and heads of other physics departments. The summary and
recommendations from the workshop have been posted on the APS gender
equity website. The department chairs attending the conference focused
on four categories: Recruiting Students, Building a Respectful
Environment, Faculty Hiring, and Faculty Retention. The consensus goal
from the workshop was to double the number of women in physics over the
next 15 years, which will require increasing the number of women
working at all steps leading to a career in science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.aps.org/programs/women/workshops/gender-equity.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
I have several recommendations to the Subcommittee. The first is to
encourage the NSF to continue the program ADVANCE: Increasing the
Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering Careers. I know firsthand this program has been of great
benefit at the University of Michigan.\4\ The practices, policies and
procedures that have been developed at ADVANCE institutions should be
integrated both into the NSF and other research and education
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://sitemaker.umich.edu/advance/home
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
My second recommendation addresses the `pipeline issue,' as
illustrated in the chart provided by the American Institute of
Physics.\5\ The figure shows the decline in the percentage of women at
various ranks, and the prediction in yellow based on the number of
Bachelor's degrees awarded to women in the past. This chart shows that
the pipeline explains the small numbers of women in physics and that
the pipeline is the problem, highlighting the need for eliminating
gender bias at every career stage. Universities such as Michigan can
work on some stages of the pipeline on their own, for example promotion
from assistant professor to associate professor, or improvement in
undergraduate education. One of the findings of ADVANCE was that open,
broad based, as opposed to narrow, searches provides a larger, more
diverse pool of applicants. While our Department has been able to do
this for graduate admissions and assistant professor searches, we have
not been able to do this at the postdoctoral level. I recommend that
NSF expand their Postdoctoral Fellowships program to include Physics,
similar to the existing programs in Astronomy and Biology. Such a
program would draw a large pool of applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/women05/
figure11.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My third recommendation is to eliminate some of the barriers to
women, especially women with young children, which is codified in OMB
circular A-21.\6\ Section J.32 on Meetings and Conferences should be
modified to specifically allow for women to take infants or small
children to conferences and the cost of childcare during the conference
should be an allowable direct or F&A expense. Section J.53 in a similar
way should allow for the travel costs associated with having small
children be an allowable direct or F&A expense. Section J.42 on
recruiting costs should be modified to recognize that attracting top
talent, either male or female, now often requires spousal
recruitment,\7\ which should be either an allowed direct or F&A cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html
\7\ ``Education in Nuclear Science,'' a report to the DOE/NSF
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, pp. 4-15 (November 2004), http://
www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/
NSAC-CR-education-report-fin
al.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I hope I can
continue to be of service on this issue. Advances in science and
engineering require the talent, hard work, and ingenuity of a large and
diverse workforce. Women represent about half of our entering
undergraduates interested in science and engineering, yet they
represent a much smaller fraction of our scientific workforce. We all
must work to remove barriers.
Biography for Myron Campbell
Education
1977-1982--Yale University, New Haven, CT; Ph.D., Physics Advisor
Robert K. Adair
1973-1977--Otterbein College, Westerville, OH; B.A., Physics
Employment
2004-Present--University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Chair, Physics
Department
1998-Present--University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Professor
1992-1998--University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Associate Professor
1989-1992--University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Assistant Professor
1989--University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Senior Scientist
1985-1989--University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Senior Research
Associate
1982-1985--University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Research Associate
1982--Yale University, New Haven, CT; Research Associate
Awards
Fellow of the American Physical Society, 1998
LS&A Excellence in Education Award, 1996
A.P. Sloan Fellow, 1990-1991
A.H. Compton Lecturer, University of Chicago, 1985
Professional Service
1990-present--CDF Executive Board
1993-1994--Femilab Users Executive Committee
1990-1993--SDC Technical Board
Departmental Committees (selected)
1998-1999--High Energy Theorist Search Committee; Undergraduate
Concerns Committee
1996-1998--High Energy Experimental Search Committee, Chair
1994-1997--Undergraduate Concerns Committee; Undergraduate Laboratory
Committee
1993-1994--Department Computing Committee, Chair
1992-1993--HEP Spin Physics Search Committee
1991-1994--Graduate Admissions
College and University Committees (selected)
2003--LS&A Executive Committee
1997-1998--CRLT Advisory Board
1995-1999--LS&A Curriculum Committee
1994--University Task Force on Research Computing
Research Activities
My research activities are in the area of high energy hadron
collisions. I am involved in the CDF (Collider Detector at Fermilab).
My efforts in this collaboration have been in the area of triggering,
i.e., identifying events of interest. My analysis efforts are directed
towards studies of top production and decay systematics.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Baird. I appreciate the comment. My wife, a Ph.D.
economist, is traveling to Seattle now for a conference, and I
am in care of two two-year, seven-month-old twins. It is not a
luxury to leave them behind either.
I did acknowledge earlier, Mr. Neugebauer from Texas, as
well, and I should inform my colleagues, I misspoke earlier.
The Pavlovian conditioning is too strong in me. We aren't
voting yet. We are just going back into session in a few
minutes, so we have a little more time and less time pressure,
which is good news.
Dr. Ritter, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. GRETCHEN RITTER, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT;
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WOMEN'S AND GENDER STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Dr. Ritter. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other
Subcommittee Members. I am please to be with you today to talk
about ways to increase women's participation in academic
science and engineering.
It has been 35 years since the passage of Title IX, yet
women continue to lag behind men in academic achievement,
particularly in the STEM disciplines. Research suggests that
these disparities are not due to differences in aptitude or
native interest between men and women. Rather, the causes lie
elsewhere, in the institutional structure and culture that
discourage women's participation in science and engineering in
limits their potential for success in those fields. While the
era of explicit sex discrimination in higher education may be
fading--hopefully fewer DOT matrix moments--implicit bias
continues to play a significant role in determining
opportunities for entry and advancement for women as well as
minority faculty members.
There remain four great barriers to women's advancement in
higher education: climate, which we have talked about today;
professional assessment and rewards; work-family balance; and
the absence of senior women. On this last barrier, I contend
that the presence of women in senior ranks has a large impact
on the overall institutional climate, on the strength of
mentoring programs, on the impact of implicit bias and
assessment, on the visibility of positive role models, and on
the creation of a family-friendly institutional culture.
In addressing these barriers, universities should design a
program that emphasizes four features: accountability,
assessment, continuity, and leadership. Assessment will allow
universities to determine whether their efforts to recruit and
retain women faculty are successful, and if not, how they may
be redesigned to increase the likelihood of success.
Regarding continuity, effort to increase women's
participation takes sustained, continuous commitment to make a
lasting difference. All too often, institutions put together a
program. They do a good job. And then they stop. And when they
stop, progress in recruiting and retaining women stops as well.
We have to keep going. We have to sustain these efforts for the
long-term. It is not a short-term effort.
What role can the Federal Government play? First, the NSF
should expand the ADVANCE program beyond individual campuses,
into other fields where women and minority faculty are under-
represented, particularly, I would argue with social sciences,
because that will help with other areas. Social scientists
really supply us with much of the research we need to
understand these institutional barriers.
Second, the Federal Government should use Title IX
enforcement as a means of advancing women in under-represented
field. The original intent of Title IX was to ensure equal
educational opportunity for both sexes. Yet relatively little
has been done outside of athletics to make that mandate
meaningful when it comes to addressing opportunities for
advancement and achievement in traditionally male-dominated
fields in higher education.
Like Dr. Shalala, I am on the women's athletic council at
UT and we just went through out NCAA recertification. If we
gave that kind of attention to gender equity and equal
opportunity in academic fields, we would be doing so much
better.
We now know that the academic achievement of young women in
math, science, and engineering, depends on the presence of
positive female role models and on women peers in the
classroom. To support educational opportunity for women, we
ought to leverage federal education and research funding to
mandate Title IX compliance. Creating equal opportunity for
women faculty will allow younger women to imagine themselves as
the next generation's great scientists and inventors.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ritter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gretchen Ritter\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The author wishes to thank Janet Ellzey, Kiersten Ferguson, J
Strother Moore, Shelley Payne, Linda Reichl, Bev Vandegrift, Gregory
Vincent, and Sharon Woods for their assistance in the preparation of
this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
1. The largest remaining barriers to women's advancement in academic
science and engineering include:
a. Climate--Even when universities are successful in
recruiting women and minority faculty, they tend to leave at
greater rates due to climate concerns.
b. Professional Assessment and Rewards--The professional
assessment and reward structures of universities often allow
for unconscious or implicit bias to play a role in providing
disparate opportunities and rewards for equally qualified male
and female faculty.
c. Work-Family Balance--Within academia, our expectations
about tenure, career trajectories and productivity, and the
conduct of research and professional service to one's
department and discipline, still presume that the full-time
faculty are unencumbered by family responsibilities or
caregiving expectations for children, partners, or elderly
parents.
d. Absence of Senior Women--The presence of women in the
senior ranks has a large impact on climate, mentoring, the role
of implicit gender bias in faculty assessment, the visibility
of positive role models, and the creation of a family friendly
institutional culture.
2. Universities should focus on the following in addressing these
barriers:
a. Accountability--Universities should implement procedures
that promote accountability in their efforts to recruit and
retain women faculty.
b. Assessment--Universities should also assess their efforts
to increase recruitment and retention of women in order to
identify which efforts are most successful and which efforts
are not.
c. Continuity--These efforts take sustained, continuous
commitment to make a substantial difference. Too often, when
successful programs end, so does progress in the recruitment
and retention of women faculty.
d. Leadership--The universities that have made substantial
gains in recruiting women faculty in under-represented fields
are the ones that have a president or a provost who is
forthright, articulate, and visibly committed to the value of
having a diverse and equitable faculty.
3. The Federal Government should:
a. Expand the ADVANCE initiative to include minorities and
women in other under-represented fields, especially in the
social sciences.
b. Use Title IX enforcement as a means of advancing women in
academic science and engineering.
I. Introduction
It has been 35 years since the passage of Title IX of the
Educational Amendments of 1972, yet women continue to lag behind men in
educational achievement, particularly in the STEM\2\ disciplines.
Research suggests that these disparities are not due to differences in
aptitude or potential interest between men and women. Rather, the
causes lie elsewhere--in the institutional structures and culture that
discourage women's participation in science and engineering, and limit
their potential for success in those fields.\3\ While the era of
explicit sex discrimination in higher education may be fading, social
science research suggests that implicit bias continues to play a
significant role in determining opportunities for entry and advancement
for women (as well as minorities) in higher education. The barriers to
women's achievement remain significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ STEM is an acronym that stands for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math.
\3\ See the National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
(Washington, DC: the National Academies Press, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot afford to tolerate women's continued exclusion from these
fields. The absence of women in academic science, social science, and
engineering has a negative impact in a variety of important areas.
Having a diverse higher education faculty is important to the Nation's
well-being. If the United States is to remain a world leader
economically, and in scientific and technological innovation, we must
recruit talented people from all sectors of our society to become
scientists and engineers. If we want to encourage women to become
engineers, African American men to become elementary school teachers,
and Hispanic women to be business professionals and lawyers, then we
need a faculty that shows our students that women and people from
different racial and ethnic backgrounds can achieve and succeed in
every field. Too often, I have had women students tell me that they
came to college wanting to be scientists or engineers, but left that
field because they felt isolated or discouraged when they had no women
classmates or women professors.
We also need to have a diverse faculty in order to advance academic
excellence. If we fail to recruit and retain women in economics or
physics, then we deny ourselves the opportunity to benefit from the
talent and insights of half of the population. If we have no black or
Hispanic senior faculty in psychology or government, then we might have
a faculty that is less motivated to exploring issues such as the impact
of racial stereotyping on social achievement or the role that black
churches play in national politics. Recruiting faculty from all sectors
of the population allows us to draw on a broader pool of talent in
building academic excellence. Retaining a diverse faculty means we
benefit from having researchers and teachers whose approach to
knowledge is shaped by a range of social experiences and interests.
Women are more likely to enter technological and scientific fields
because of their interest in social issues, like advancing children's
health, or improving the lives of the disabled. So recruiting a more
diverse faculty is likely to shape the research agenda and scientific
innovations of the next generation.
Finally, it is worth remembering that American universities have
always played a vital role in the development of our nation's economic,
political and social leadership. It is part of the mission of public
universities in particular to provide access to educational
opportunities as a means of developing a diverse leadership for a
democratic nation. With the advent of globalization, it is more
important than ever that we encourage the development of leaders who
operate well in an interconnected world marked by differences of race,
religion, gender and culture. Public universities can provide both a
social climate and an intellectual environment that is supportive of
diversity and leadership. Since advances in fields like information
technology will shape our economy and our society in decades to come,
it is essential that women and minorities be recruited into those
fields, as scientific leaders in a sector that will shape our nation's
future. We will all benefit if the Michael Dells, Bill Gates, and Steve
Jobs of the next generation come from a more diverse cross section of
our community. Our universities can help to make that happen.
II. Efforts at the University of Texas at Austin to Recruit and Retain
Women in Science and Engineering
Currently, at the University of Texas at Austin, women make up 10.6
percent of the tenured and tenure track faculty in the College of
Engineering, and 12.7 percent of the tenured and tenure track faculty
in the College of Natural Sciences.\4\ Among assistant professors,
women make up 19 percent of the faculty in Engineering and Natural
Sciences. Overall, at the university as of 2006, women constitute 18
percent of the full professors, 38 percent of the associate professors,
and 39 percent of the assistant professors. Further, 24 percent of the
tenured faculty are women at the university. So while there are fewer
women in science and engineering, women are under-represented within
the tenured and tenure track faculty university wide. According to the
AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators 2006 report, the comparable
figures for the proportion of women faculty at doctoral universities
nationwide are 19 percent of the full professors, and 40 percent of the
assistant professors.\5\ This same report indicates that 26 percent of
the tenured faculty are women at doctoral institutions nationwide. So
the University of Texas at Austin is close to these national averages,
but slightly below those averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These figures are calculated from the 2006-7 Statistical
Handbook (Office of Information Management and Analysis, UT Austin).
Please see table FS 8, pp. 119-120. For the College of Natural
Sciences, the faculty in the Department of Human Ecology were not
included in the calculation, since these are primarily social
scientists.
\5\ Martha S. West and John W. Curtis, AAUP Faculty Gender Equity
Indicators 2006 (Washington, DC: AAUP, 2006). See Figures 4 & 5, pp. 8
& 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are programs at the University of Texas at Austin that seek
to address the under-representation of women in academic science and
engineering. The College of Engineering created the Women in
Engineering Program (WEP) in 1992. This program seeks to recruit women
students, and increase the proportion of women receiving undergraduate
degrees in engineering at the University. The primary focus of their
efforts has been to provide academic and peer support to first and
second year women undergraduates. Within the College of Natural
Sciences, the Women in Natural Sciences program (WINS) focuses
primarily on issues facing women students at the undergraduate level.
One successful WINS initiative that began in 2001 is the Honors
Residential Program for women undergraduates in natural science. The
students who participate in this program are found to have a higher
level of academic success and retention than female students in natural
sciences who do not participate in the program. The College of
Engineering now offers a similar residential program for first year
students, called WELD.
Both WEP and WINS offer K-12 programs as well, designed to
encourage interest in sciences and engineering among middle school and
high school girls. The ``Science in Action Program'' is aimed at area
schoolgirls between the ages of 11-15. This day-long program allows
students to participate and observe science demonstrations at the
college's research labs. WINS also supports the work of Girlstart, a
local nonprofit organization which promotes science and math learning
among elementary and middle school girls. Likewise, each February, the
College of Engineering hosts the ``Introduce a Girl to Engineering
Day,'' which attracts over 1,000 area schoolgirls to participate in
demonstrations and workshops designed to promote interest in
engineering. In addition to these efforts, the Center for Women's and
Gender Studies (CWGS) has a school partnership agreement with the Ann
Richards School for Young Women Leaders. The Ann Richards School is a
public, all girls middle school that focuses on success in the STEM
disciplines. Under the partnership agreement, CWGS provided mentoring
and professional development support to the faculty and staff at the
school. CWGS faculty also conduct research at the school to assess the
effectiveness of its programs.
Less has been done at the graduate or the faculty level to promote
the recruitment and retention of women in engineering and science. In
the late 1980s and 1990s, Target of Opportunity funding was made
available through the provost's office to assist in recruiting women
and minority faculty in fields where they were under-represented. This
funding made a substantial difference in the number of women faculty
hired. In the College of Engineering, for instance, the number of
tenured or tenure track faculty increased from just eight in 1987 to 21
in 1997. When this funding was withdrawn, hiring and retention efforts
stalled, so that in 2002 there were still only 21 women faculty (nine
percent of the total) in the College of Engineering.\6\ With the help
of leadership by the dean and various department chairs in recent
years, the number of women faculty in the college has now risen to 26,
which still represents under 11 percent of the total tenured/tenure
track faculty in the college. Within the College of Natural Sciences,
over the past five years WINS has sponsored five workshops for chairs,
executive assistants, and search committee members on best practices
for diversity recruiting and has created an online faculty recruiting
handbook. Three CNS departments have implemented these best practices,
under the leadership of a strong Chair or search committee chair, and
all three have doubled their representation of women faculty. Apart
from these workshops and chair led efforts in particular departments
(such as Computer Science), relatively little has been done to promote
increased recruitment and retention of women faculty. To date, UT
Austin has not participated in the ADVANCE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These figures were obtained from a powerpoint presentation made
by Dr. Sherry E. Woods, (Director of Special Projects in the College of
Engineering), dated November 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the level of the university as a whole, efforts have been made
to address the needs of women faculty and the situation of women in
under-represented fields. In 1999, a report was done on the status of
women, which revealed some faculty salary inequities by gender. The
provost's office set aside funding to address those inequities in 2000.
One barrier to professional achievement for women academics nationally
involves work-family balance issues. Overall women are still more
likely to have primary responsibility for addressing dependent care
needs within families. Further, women academics are also more likely to
be married to male academics (and to male professionals), which makes
dual career issues of greater importance to women academics. UT Austin
has sought to address these concerns in recent years by expanding the
amount of university provided childcare that is available to faculty,
and by reserving some spots at the childcare center for use in faculty
recruitment. Funding is also available from the provost's office for
faculty spousal hiring. Further, the university now offers a modified
instructional duties policy, which is intended to allow faculty with
substantial caregiving responsibilities for newborns to be relieved of
their obligation to teach full-time for a semester while still
receiving their full salaries.
In 2006, the university created the Division of Diversity and
Community Engagement which is charged with promoting diversity and
gender equity for students, staff, and faculty. This division is
working with the provost's office to promote hiring that will increase
the number of women and minorities on the faculty. The provost's office
also recently created the Gender Equity Task Force which is charged
with examining the situation of women faculty on campus and
recommending policies that promote gender equity. The task force (which
I co-chair, along with Dr. J. Moore, Chair of Computer Science) is
expected to complete its work and issue its report next spring.
These efforts are important, but more remains to be done.
Nationally, many universities have become aware that the advancement of
women faculty in under-represented fields requires focused and
continuous effort by the institution as a whole. UT Austin does not
currently have a clear and effective leader on gender equity in our
central administration. While the president and the provost have voiced
support for gender equity, there need to be mechanisms created that
will hold deans and department chairs accountable for their
achievements in this domain. There also needs to be someone with
authority in the higher administration whose primary responsibility
includes oversight of efforts to increase the university's recruitment
and retention of women in under-represented fields. Finally, more
effort should be given to assessment, so that we know whether the
programs and policies that we sponsor are effective and should be
sustained.
III. Remaining Challenges, Promising Solutions
Nationally, there have been substantial increases in the number of
women obtaining undergraduate degrees in the sciences, social sciences
and engineering. The numbers of doctorates awarded have also increased
substantially in many disciplines, yet this has not translated into
comparable increases in the proportion of women faculty in these
fields. What are the major barriers to the retention and promotion of
women faculty within higher education nationwide? Further, how might
these barriers be most effectively addressed within academia? In this
section, I briefly highlight the most significant barriers to the
advancement of women in under-represented fields in the areas of
climate, professional assessment and reward, work-family balance, and
the absence of senior women. Following the discussion of these
challenges, I review the most promising areas where solutions may be
sought to the problem of women's under-representation in academia. My
recommendations in this area focus on accountability, assessment,
continuity, and leadership.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Please note that since the Gender Equity Task Force at UT
Austin is still collecting and analyzing data, the applicability of the
recommendations in this section for UT Austin have yet to be
determined.
Climate
Institutional climate has a large impact on whether women and
minority faculty thrive and are retained in fields where they are
under-represented. Even when universities are successful in recruiting
women and minority faculty, they tend to leave at greater rates due to
climate concerns. Sometimes women and minority faculty have less access
to the informal professional networks that are important to their
professional success. They may feel as though their achievements and
credentials are regarded as suspect by students and colleagues alike.
There may be few people in their department with whom they can
communicate about the particular challenges they face in establishing
authority in the classroom, in responding to the needs and expectations
of women and minority students, or in finding social connections with
people from similar social backgrounds outside of the university. Women
faculty (as well as many male faculty with substantial caregiving
responsibilities) may sense that there is a lack of sympathy or support
for their family responsibilities. Finally, if there are no senior
women or minority faculty within their department (or administrators at
their institution), then junior faculty are more likely to feel
professionally isolated, and to doubt whether their institution will
ever promote and retain someone like them.
To address some of these climate concerns, several things are
helpful.\8\ Universities should create strong mentorship programs that
address concerns about intellectual community and social networks as
well as professional development. They should also establish clear
policies that promote a family friendly work environment for faculty.
Where campus wide organizations for women and minority faculties exist,
they should be supported and strengthened. Where they do not exist,
they should be created. Support for interdisciplinary centers in
racial, ethnic, or women's studies may also play a role in promoting
intellectual community and social connection among women and minority
faculty in a variety of fields. Finally, there should be forums,
lectures, and workshops that promote frank and open discussions of
climate issues on campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Also see Jean Waltman and Carol Hollenshead, ``Creating a
Positive Departmental Climate: Principles for Best Practices,''
Prepared for NSF ADVANCE at the University of Michigan, available at
http://www.umich.edu/%7Eadvproj/
BestPracticesReport-FINAL-Aug07.pdf
Professional Assessment and Rewards
The professional assessment and reward structures of universities
often allow for unconscious or implicit bias to play a role in
providing disparate opportunities and rewards for equally qualified
male and female faculty. Like everyone in our society, academics employ
information assessment shortcuts, or cognitive schemas, that filter
information according to pre-existing understandings about how the
world works. Such schemas include deeply rooted race and gender
stereotypes.\9\ These schemas, or unconscious biases, play a greater
role in influencing assessments if they remain implicit and
unaddressed, if assessments are made in a largely subjective fashion,
and if the group conducting the assessment is not itself socially
diverse. Typical university procedures for faculty recruitment,
assessments for salary recommendations, and promotions evaluation all
rely on assessment processes that are largely subjective and that may
be conducted by a largely homogeneous group of evaluators. Further, the
impact of these disparate assessments accumulate over time, so that
over the course of their careers, women academics in under-represented
fields may perpetually receive slightly smaller rewards and slightly
fewer opportunities, until a decade or two down the line when they make
receive lower salaries, are less likely to have advanced to the rank of
full professor, and have less lab space than their equally accomplished
male counterparts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).
\10\ JR Cole & B Singer, ``A Theory of Limited Differences:
Explaining the Productivity Puzzle in Science,'' in H. Zuckerman, JR
Cole and J Bruer, eds., The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific
Community (NY: Norton, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universities can do several things to alleviate the impact of
unconscious bias on professional assessments or rewards. They can
mandate that assessments be conducted in an objective fashion, with
clear criteria for professional achievement and productivity.\11\ Where
possible, professional assessments should be conducted blindly, without
awareness of the race, ethnicity or gender of the person being
evaluated. Yet, if a blind assessment is not possible (and there are
often implicit indicators of race or gender in someone's professional
record), then the assessors should be encouraged to be self-aware about
the role that race and gender biases may play in their assessments.
Self-awareness can decrease the influence that biases have on
assessment. Finally, assessments should be conducted by diverse
assessment teams. Universities should put in place procedures that
insure the racial and gender diversity of faculty search committees,
salary review committees, and promotion and tenure committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Claudia Goldin & C. Rouse (2000), ``Orchestrating
Impartiality: The Impact of `Blind' Auditions on Female Musicians,''
American Economic Review 90:715-741.
Work-Family Balance
The creation of family support policies at universities benefits
the entire faculty and not just women. After the second world war,
public and private social benefits programs were based on the
presumption of a family structure that included a male breadwinner and
a female caregiver. With the huge influx of women into the labor
market, as well as changes in patterns of marriage, divorce, and
childbearing, we no longer live in a society in which the breadwinner/
caregiver model is applicable. But our employment policies and
presumptions have yet to adjust to fact that most family caregivers are
also paid employees, and that many caregivers have no other adult in
the household to rely upon in sharing the duties of care and economic
provision.\12\ Within academia, our expectations about tenure, career
trajectories and productivity, and the conduct of research and
professional service to one's department and discipline, still presume
that the full-time faculty are unencumbered by family responsibilities
or caregiving expectations for children, partners, or elderly parents.
Those presumptions are clearly unrealistic, and they are particularly
harmful to women faculty who are more likely to be limited by the
professional careers of their spouses, and more likely to have primary
caregiver responsibility for family members. Further, to a greater
degree than ever before, younger academic men are likely to have
substantial caregiving responsibilities for their children, and to have
spouses who work full-time. So both in the interest of gender equity,
and in the interest of attracting men and women of talent into academic
careers, universities must do more to support the family
responsibilities of their faculty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Joan Williams, Unbending Gender (NY: Oxford University Press,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the University of California at Berkeley, Drs. Mary Ann Mason
and Marc Goulden have been national leaders in assessing the impact
that work-family conflict has on the under-representation of women in
academia, and in recommending policies and piloting programs intended
to address these issues.\13\ Most research universities now provide
some childcare, unpaid childbearing leave, and stop-the-clock policies
that extend the tenure clock for faculty with substantial caregiving
responsibilities, as well as some assistance for dual career issues. In
addition, Mason and Golden recommend that universities implement
programs that create part-time tenured or tenure track options for
faculty with substantial caregiving responsibilities, provide paid
childbearing leave, provide emergency back-up childcare, assist spouses
and partners of faculty with employment relocation services, provide
re-entry post-doctoral fellowships for faculty who have taken time off
to focus on family care needs, and create policies that insure family
friendly calendars and scheduling for faculty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For more information on their research and on the Family
Friendly Edge Project at UC-Berkeley, go to http://
ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/
Absence of Senior Women
In recent years, many universities have increased their efforts to
recruit women faculty at the assistant professor level. These efforts
are important and should be continued. Yet institutions often become
frustrated by the difficulties they face in retaining and promoting the
junior women they have recruited. Not only does this difficulty
represent a failed investment by the university in their efforts to
cultivate faculty talent, it may also reinforce negative stereotypes
about women faculty, by suggesting that junior women are less likely to
stay in academia or to succeed in getting promoted to the tenured
faculty. It is little surprise, then, that some senior male faculty
wonder whether efforts to recruit junior women are worthwhile. What
this perspective neglects, however, is the important role that senior
faculty women play in creating institutional cultures in which junior
faculty women are likely to succeed. The presence of women in the
senior ranks has a large impact on the climate of a department and an
institution, on the ability of institutions to provide mentoring that
is supportive of diversity, on the role of implicit gender bias in
faculty assessment and reward structures, on the service demands
imposed on more junior faculty women, on the visibility of positive
role models for junior faculty women and women students, and on the
creation of a family friendly institutional culture within departments
and colleges. For all of these reasons--and because the delay or
departure of women faculty before they reach the senior ranks
represents a loss of accumulated experience, insight, and potential
innovations--more effort should be made to reward and retain women at
or near the senior level.
In order to reward and retain women at or near the senior faculty
level, universities should consider implementing some of the following
policies and programs. They should fund efforts that result in more
senior faculty women being hired. They should provide support for
elder-care responsibilities, which are more likely to fall to women at
the mid-career stage. They should provide research assistance and
leaves for associate level faculty who undertake substantive service or
administrative positions, such as associate dean, center director, or
faculty senate chair. In fields where there are fewer women, the desire
for diverse representation in administrative and service roles often
leads to greater service demands on women at an earlier career stage.
Efforts should be made to decrease the impact that such demands have on
the research productivity of mid-career women faculty. Since women
faculty are less likely to seek outside offers as a means of raising
their salaries, efforts should be made to provide equity related and
productivity based salary adjustments without having to rely on outside
offers. Finally, attention should be given to the way in which endowed
professorships and chairs are awarded to internal faculty. To
counteract the possible impact of implicit gender bias and the greater
professional isolation of senior women faculty, the awarding of endowed
positions to internal faculty should be overseen by a diverse panel of
senior faculty from across the campus.
Accountability, Assessment, Continuity and Leadership
For each of the areas discussed above, attention has been given to
efforts that universities can undertake to reduce the impact of
institutional barriers to the advancement of women in under-represented
fields. This section concludes with additional suggestions of ways that
universities nationally can promote the recruitment and retention of
women in under-represented fields.
Universities should implement procedures that promote
accountability in their efforts to recruit and retain women faculty.
Accountability means requiring colleges and departments to report on
their recruitment, promotion and retention efforts regarding the
identification of a diverse pool or applicants, the proportion of
applicants by sex and race, the composition of search committees, and
the composition of governance committees that make hiring, promotion,
and salary recommendation decisions. Accountability also means
requiring deans and department chairs in fields where there is
substantial under-representation to set goals for improving the
representation of women faculty, and then providing or withholding
resources in relation to their progress in achieving those goals. If,
for instance, a department proves to be stubbornly unwilling to recruit
any women faculty over a number of years, then they should be
restricted in their ability to hire new faculty. Finally,
accountability should include the ability and willingness of a dean or
a provost to intervene when policies and procedures implemented to
promote the recruitment and retention of women are not followed. For
instance, if participants in a faculty search fail to make a good faith
effort to identify and solicit applications from qualified women
candidates, then a dean or provost should be willing to stop the
faculty search until the failure to follow these procedures is
corrected. Without accountability, goals and policies may be rendered
meaningless.
Universities should also assess their efforts to increase
recruitment and retention of women in order to identify which efforts
are most successful and which efforts are not. Assessments of programs
and policies should be done following standard social science protocols
that promote objective evaluations. Program evaluations should be
published, so that they may be scrutinized within the university
community and by academics elsewhere. Where assessments provide strong
evidence of the success of a program or policy, increased support
should be given to that policy, and the policy should be replicated by
other departments and colleges within the university. Where programs or
policies do not succeed, an analysis should be done to identify the
reasons for their failure, in order to improve the university's efforts
in this area.
Continuity is also important to the success of these efforts. All
too often, in the wake of a particular report or in response to an
outspoken faculty leader, universities make short-term efforts to
address gender equity concerns through one time efforts to correct
disparities in salaries or promotion rates, or with short-term
initiatives intended to increase the number of junior women who are
hired. But even in the case of successful programs, like the Target of
Opportunity fund that was used to recruit women in under-represented
fields at UT-Austin, when the program ends, so does progress in the
recruitment and retention of women faculty. These efforts take
sustained, continuous commitment to make a substantial difference. Not
until the culture of an institution has thoroughly changed and there is
a proportionate number of women in the senior faculty and
administration of our universities should we consider letting up in our
efforts to recruit more women in academic science and engineering.
Finally, to succeed these efforts take leadership from the highest
levels of the university. The universities that have made substantial
gains in recruiting women faculty in under-represented fields are the
ones that have a president or a provost who is forthright, articulate,
and visibly committed to the value of having a diverse and equitable
faculty. Whenever searches are conducted for a new dean, provost, and
president, strong candidates should have a record that verifies their
commitment to faculty diversity and equity. Administrative leaders can
help to set the tone for the entire institution. They can help to
explain the value of equity and diversity to their senior faculty and
department chairs. And they can hold deans and chairs accountable for
their successes and failures in this area.
IV. Role of Federal Funding Agencies
The ADVANCE\14\ initiative has made a substantial difference in the
representation of women in science and engineering at several leading
universities such as the University of Michigan. The ADVANCE program
ought to be expanded in several respects: the initiative should be
broadened to include women in all under-represented fields,
particularly including the social sciences; the initiative ought to be
aimed to increasing the proportion of minority faculty (along with
women) in the STEM disciplines; and it ought to be broadened beyond
individual universities. Regarding the last point, the PAID Awards
clearly seek to have a broadening effect in encouraging the
universities with successful ADVANCE programs to serve as models for
universities elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ADVANCE is an National Science Foundation program for
``Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic
Science and Engineering Careers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including women from the social sciences in the ADVANCE grants is
important for a number of reasons. Social scientists can provide the
research needed to understand why women and minorities are under-
represented in academia. They can also play a crucial role in designing
programs aimed at rectifying those difficulties. Since social science
participation is important to the success of ADVANCE grants, and since
women social scientists are more likely to undertake research that
examines the effects of gender bias, it would be helpful to include
social scientists in the ADVANCE program. Further, on their own merits,
it is important to have a diverse social science faculty since social
scientists help to understand how society operates, and their research
helps to address social problems such as the under-representation of
groups in the economy, politics and education. Which social problems we
choose to study will depend, in part, on who the social scientists are
who conduct the research. Finally, the involvement of social scientists
is important to changing the institutional culture of universities
overall. Social science exists at something of a midway point between
science and engineering on the one hand, and the fine arts and
humanities on the other. Social scientists can play a crucial role in
explaining the nature of this problem and formulating solutions
regarding under-representation to both the positivists in the sciences
and engineering, and to the humanists in the arts and humanities.
Another way to increase the impact of these efforts is through
Title IX enforcement.\15\ The Society of Women Engineers is among the
groups now advocating for increased reliance on Title IX enforcement as
a means of advancing women in academic science and engineering. In
2004, the GAO asked granting agencies to insure that grant recipients
were in compliance with Title IX.\16\ What this might mean in practice
and whether such compliance reviews are being conducted is not entirely
clear. Last year, Senators Boxer and Wyden called for an amendment to
the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act that would require
the NSF to conduct compliance reviews as well. The original intent of
Title IX was to insure equal education opportunity for both sexes. Yet
relatively little has been done (outside of the arena of athletics) to
make that mandate meaningful when it comes to addressing opportunities
for academic achievement and advancement for women in traditionally
male dominated fields. We now understand more clearly than ever before
that the academic achievement of young women in math, engineering, and
science depends on the presence of positive female role models as well
as women peers in the class room. To support equal academic
opportunities for these young women, we ought to use the leverage of
federal education funding to mandate Title IX compliance within the
faculty of our research universities. Creating equality of opportunity
for women within the faculty will have a big effect in allowing a young
woman to imagine herself as one of the great scientists or inventors of
her generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Richard Zare, ``Sex, Lies and Title IX: Federal Law Banning
Sex Discrimination in School May do as Much for Academics as it has for
Athletics,'' Chemical & Engineering News Vol. 84 (May 15, 2006): 46-49.
\16\ GAO report 04-639: ``Gender Issues: Women's Participation in
the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need To Do More To Ensure
Compliance with Title IX,'' www.gao.gov/new.items/d04639.pdf
Biography for Gretchen Ritter
Dr. Gretchen Ritter is Professor of Government and Director of the
Center for Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Texas at
Austin. She is also currently serving as Co-Chair of the Gender Equity
Task Force that was appointed by Provost Steven Leslie. She received
her B.S. in government at Cornell University and her Ph.D. in political
science from MIT. Professor Ritter specializes in studies of American
politics, constitutional development, and gender politics from a
historical and theoretical perspective. She has published two books as
well as numerous articles and essays. Her current research examines the
impact of work-family issues on gender equity in the United States.
Professor Ritter has been a Faculty Fellow at Princeton University, a
Liberal Arts Fellow at Harvard Law School, and has received a National
Endowment for the Humanities fellowship.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ritter. I very much
appreciate the comments and will now proceed to questioning.
The standard procedure is that each Member gets five minutes
for questioning. We rotate back and forth across the sides.
A question from me is I hear a lot of praise of the ADVANCE
program. My assumption would be, probably, that institutions
that have applied for the ADVANCE program are already pretty
savvy to this. And so you have got--meaning that at least
somebody in leadership at that institution says we need to
address this; hence, they apply for the grant. So my question
would be what can we do to expand that, learn from what has
worked in ADVANCE and then expand that to other institutions?
Dr. Hrabowski, you are prompt with a hand up, so----
Dr. Hrabowski. I am, because, first of all, and I think
Donna would agree with me on this, unlike in companies,
presidents can't make people do many things at universities. It
is called consensus building and shared governance and
committees that take more time than you might expect sometimes.
What am I saying? So you can talk about bringing people----
Chairman Baird. They call it, Doctor, the faculty senate
for a good reason.
Dr. Hrabowski. Touche. I will tell you this: it seems to me
the people who are applying have some people on that campus who
realize there are issues. But one of the reasons they are
applying is there are challenges.
Now, this is one thing that I have to say, and I can say
this as an African American. I have met so many scientists who
are not aware of the issues or who don't necessarily believe
there are these issues, and they are good people. But we are
all products of our environment. Whether it is about increasing
the number of minorities on the faculty, or increasing the
number of women, people need education at every level. It seems
to me, as we develop these ADVANCE campuses, we need incentives
to continue applying what we've learned and incentives to
replicate.
To use what we are learning, we have a group of faculty
from the University of Michigan on our campus, a group of
people who came and worked with our faculty. It was great. And
so I think we can--we need incentive, though, to do that kind
of work. I also think that as we think about all of the NSF
funding that goes out into the campuses, we need ways of
substantively tying these issues together. I really believe so.
People will listen to money. I mean when you talk about the
money that you have.
I do want to recommend that you look at page four of my
testimony. There is one point to be made here. This is a
picture of all of the women who came our Faculty Horizons
Program. Half of these women are women of color. I wanted to
make this point about this. What it did for my campus was to
say to the departments people exist who have Ph.D.s who are
Black and Hispanic women. We need to look at those women, talk
about developing them, helping them with post-docs, thinking
about them for faculty positions so that while we want to
continue increasing the number of women of color, the fact is
there are more out there than we might think, and companies do
a much better job than universities.
NSF can help us in bringing these women to our campuses,
getting to know each other, and building that momentum.
Chairman Baird. Very well said. Dr. Shalala.
Dr. Shalala. I just want to tell a quick story, parleying
on what my colleague said here.
My proudest moment at the University of Wisconsin Madison
was when an African American woman said to me that we had hired
so many African American women she didn't have to like them
all.
Chairman Baird. That is a great story. You know, we had
tried to embody this earlier. I acknowledged the staff. I
should note that when I mention staff, the senior staff are
both doctorates in science, and they are both sitting right
next to us, both women. This committee, particularly under Vern
Ehlers's leadership on the Republican side, but Bart Gordon on
the Democratic side, has made a commitment to this.
You mentioned the incentives, Dr. Hrabowski, but one of the
things that I note is when you apply for tenure, it is
basically your personal research productivity. You get about
zero credit for having mentored--and I have been through this
process--for having mentored young students. And so the
incentives for our faculty to bring young students along the
line and move them into the track towards graduate school is
near nil. I don't know if you have identified any institutions
that include some credit for mentoring or graduate students
acceptance or admission along the way, but it would be an
interesting thought--or if you have included it in your own
practices. If you have a faculty member who mentors young
students, do they get credit, because my experience has been
that many times women faculty are particularly more interested
in bringing along the next generation, but at their own
detriment when it comes to tenure application.
Any thoughts on that? Dr. Olsen.
Dr. Olsen. Actually, I have couple things. First of all,
you know that we actually provide Presidential Awards for
Mentoring, and his institution has won, I think, two. The
Competes Bill also has some interesting comments on mentoring
that the National Science Foundation is taking to heart. In the
NSF geosciences Directorate, we have a requirement for the
grant proposal that when they have graduate students in that,
that they talk about the mentoring within that grant.
So we are really moving towards that because we know that
mentoring does work.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ritter, you look like you may have a
though on that.
Dr. Ritter. Yeah, I think you are finding women and
minority faculty doing more than their fair share of the
mentoring is a real concern. I think what often happens, what
has been noticed at our institution and happens elsewhere as
well, is a lot of women get stuck at the midlevel and never
make it to the senior level, essentially, because they are
taking up more of a service burden because there are too few of
them.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Hrabowski.
Dr. Hrabowski. The institutional culture has everything to
do with this. It seems to me two things, number one, the NSF
IGERT grants are great in terms of training and having
incentives for people to get involved in working with students
in this, but we are convinced that by having an individualized
faculty-development plan for women and for faculty in general
to know exactly what is expected and to make sure that the
person isn't overwhelmed is very important because women are
often asked to do far more than people even realize because
they are good at doing it. And we need a culture, though, that
makes sure that someone is working with that young woman to
make sure she is not overdoing in some areas that will not help
her move towards tenure.
Chairman Baird. I am going to move Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, two
quick comments on the testimony. Dr. Shalala talked about
sports and the NCAA. The obvious solution is to designate the
sciences as sport.
Dr. Hrabowski. By the way, chess is a sport in Russia.
Mr. Ehlers. That is right. Chess already is a sport.
But there are two advantage to that. First the NCAA rules
would apply, but secondly, you would also share in the football
revenues.
The other comment is, Dr. Hrabowski, you made a comment
about the politics, faculty politics. It reminds me of when I
first got into politics. One of my colleagues commended me and
said I am just amazed. You know, you come from academia, and
you just really understand the politics around this place. I
said, well, frankly, this is real politics. It is a lot easier
than academic politics.
Dr. Hrabowski. Where the pie is much smaller.
Mr. Ehlers. Anyway, back to business. Pardon me.
First of all, insight from any of you on this: there are
some professions that have done pretty well at achieving close
to 50/50, medicine, law--that is not much a science, but
nevertheless, it was traditionally male--and there are various
other professions. Have you any of you looked at that and
analyzed how that happened as--particularly in medicine which
is science related, compared to the problems you are
encountering? Is there something unique about the universities
that limits this?
Dr. Campbell. This is exactly something that I have been
curious about. How is that fire departments and police
departments are more integrated than physics departments? How
is it that the navy is more integrated than physics
departments? And part of the answer, frankly, comes from the
ability to have true, top-down decision made. And that is
something that in many fields in academics, a top-down decision
to try to do something like that is going to be met with
resistance from everyone involved, and exactly the opposite
effect is going to be achieved.
I don't think that the kinds of solutions that we are
seeing in those other kinds of fields are practical here, and
so many of the kinds of things that we have to do really are
changing the climate, as we have talked about, and that has to
occur at the stages where the everyday interactions and the
everyday decisions are being made.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Ritter, you wanted to answer
that?
Dr. Ritter. Yes, I would just have a couple of things. One
is that one issue in academia, I think, is the coincidence of
tenure track with family formation creates particular stresses.
I think one of the reasons why medicine has done better is that
it is easier to be a successful professional and not have an
80-hour-a-week job. You can't do that as an assistant professor
at a top research university.
Law, actually, I think it really depends on which field of
law we are talking about. There are very, very few women
partners still at major firms.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Shalala?
Dr. Shalala. Thank you very much. Actually, we have done
pretty well in medical schools in terms of students and in law
schools in terms of students. It still gets narrower when you
go to the top in terms of the tenure faculty appointment in
medical schools. The reason the numbers look better is because
women go into the clinical tracks, and there we can have
flexibility in terms of how many hours you work. So we still
see the same things in medical school in terms of chairman
positions, tenure-track positions, moving to full professors,
where the numbers aren't very good.
There is no question the pool is huge, and I think that is
our fundamental point. Elementary and secondary education has
done a terrific job in terms of encouraging young people, women
in particular to go into science. We have these huge pools at
the undergraduate level. At the graduate level it gets
narrower. In the great research universities, it gets even
narrower.
That is true in medicine, but in medicine, they have
another kind of track called the clinical track, and that is
where you will see larger percentages of women.
Mr. Ehlers. This relates to a follow-up question, and that
is do you have any data or do you have any idea how many women
will choose, in a particular situation, to go into some other
profession rather than university teaching because of these
factors?
Dr. Hrabowski. Let me start with women in general and women
of color. As we have produced Ph.D.s on our campus and then
sent them other places, I have listened to the voices of those
new Ph.D.s in science, women and women of color, and what I
find is the quality of mentoring has been very uneven. When the
advisor is very supportive, you will have a greater probability
that that young woman will think about post-doctoral
experiences and the possibility of going into university.
Unfortunately, when the advisor has not understood the role
that he could have played--and it is often he, quite frankly--
or has just not understood the challenges she has faced, the
person wants to leave the academy because companies are much
more welcoming.
What others will tell you is, to the extent that it has
been a terrible experience--and you talked about this earlier.
If they have not had a great experience--and I talk about it in
my testimony with a woman who just said it has just been a
lonely road, and I don't want this anymore. So the quality of
the experience while in grad school, the quality of mentoring
will determine the extent to which the person may even consider
the possibility of continuing on to a post-doc.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Olsen, you----
Dr. Olsen. I just wanted to point out again, that right
now, 52 percent of the majors in science in the undergraduate
level are women, and one of the things that the National
Science Foundation has been really fostering as well is the
fact that a Ph.D. really opens up the way that you think. And
people go to law school, not because they are going to practice
law, but because it opens up opportunities, and I think people
here, with the number of doctorates sitting up there, knows
that earning that degree in science or engineering really can
open up a lot of careers, and some are more supportive for
women and industries tend to really--have gotten onto the
childcare and these issues. I think the academy is learning
that this is a critical component. But we are really trying to
get more people, males, females, under-representeds, to
actually major in science and engineering all of the way to the
Ph.D. levels and then hopefully have a plethora of career
opportunities for them, waiting for them.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
You know, reflecting on my own graduate experience which
was somewhat mixed in terms of the enjoyment level, it may be a
manifestation of the superior intelligence of women that so
many drop out of the graduate program.
Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I have to say your testimony, all of
you, has been energetic. It has been interesting, informative,
and hopefully, we can make some progress here.
Dr. Shalala, in your testimony, you report a dreadful
number, 15 percent of full professorships are women. Some of
that might be due to legacy effects. Is there any more
encouraging news in the last five or ten years on that subject,
or is there any statistics in that?
Dr. Shalala. There are statistics. It is not increasing
much. We look specifically at the major research universities,
so that is where the difficulty has been. We looked at the top
research universities, where federal money is going, NIH money,
NSF money, because we though it was important that if the
United States is investing its scientific moneys in the great
research universities in this country, then we can expect them
to expect that the personnel will be the most talented, so we
focused there.
You know, the numbers are getting better, not fast enough
given the pool. The interesting thing about the study--and I
actually didn't want to chair this panel, not my subject of
expertise. I sort of got talked into it by the National
Academies into doing it. But what I learned was that the pools
are there for the first time.
We used to say, you know, we got to develop the pools. That
was our excuse. The pools aren't there. And what I mean by that
is the 52 percent. There are women studying science, and that
is why I give praise--somehow the elementary and secondary
education has excited young women about science enough so they
are majoring in it in our major colleges and minor colleges and
universities, frankly. But to get them to the Ph.D. level, even
when they get there, they don't seem to get the jobs at the
major institutions. That is why we know that there are cultural
issues. There are sensitivity issues. There are opportunity
issues. There is a network that needs to be worked. That is why
we are so optimistic, because it is not the pool issue anymore.
It is our behavior.
Mr. McNerney. Well, one of the things we have talked about
this in this committee is the deterrent for people to go into
science and research in general because the compensation is
poor. The number of years it takes to get to a good position,
and then once you are there, again, the compensation is that
not that great compared to what you could be doing in industry,
so I think we are in trouble in general on this issue, and one
of the things I like to soapbox about is how we really can't
afford to leave anyone behind. Our nation needs to pick up
every single person of any color or any background or any
religion, because we need them for our future challenges. And
anything we can do to encourage that is something that is our
responsibility and our duty, so we look forward to your good
ideas.
Dr. Hrabowski.
Dr. Hrabowski. I really do want you to remember too,
though--and I have to say this--that while we have a few more
African Americans, for example, and Hispanics making it at the
Ph.D. level, women or men, the fact is that you still only have
about five percent of the Ph.D.s going to African American in
the country, so there are still very few women of color, Black
and Hispanic, from certain groups, who are at the Ph.D. level,
and I think it is so important to keep thinking about both of
these issues.
When I was a grad student in mathematics at Illinois, there
was only one woman in the whole department of mathematics. She
understood how alone I was, and she connected to me, and that
is why I know from personal experience, quite frankly, that
white women and kids of color, there is a connection there
because of the loneliness that they feel, and it is important
to think about how we keep building both of those pools.
Mr. McNerney. Well, what specific steps would be most
effective in terms of academic roles in terms of getting women
and people of color to move into these spaces?
Dr. Hrabowski. Just to suggest that for the women that we
get--it is so interesting to me. We need incentives to help
institutions work with the researchers, mainly the guys, to
pull women in as post-docs and to pull them in to think about
faculty positions and to give them the kind of support that
males just get naturally, in the bathroom, on the golf course,
on the basketball court. I mean it may sound trite, but it is
so true. I see it all the time. The woman just wasn't in the
room when certain discussions were being held. And mentoring is
a very important part of that. We still have many people who
think mentoring is warm and fuzzy stuff, not realizing that we,
males, in general, get much more mentoring than we realize.
Mr. McNerney. Well, we certainly recognize the importance
of mentoring all of the way from kindergarten on up, so that is
something that we could think about in our role. Thank you very
much. I yield back.
Dr. Hrabowski. Economic incentives, financial incentives.
It makes the people listen to the money talk.
Mr. Neuberger. Well, as you can tell, at this end of the
table, from here, that direction, are all doctors, and I dumb
down the room by bringing a business guy into the room, and so
I thank the Chairman for having this hearing.
Dr. Ritter, it is always good to have a fellow Texan here,
and our Red Raiders are going to--speaking of football--going
to come down and visit you all in just a few weeks, and I hope
you will be kind to us.
I would like a little bit of bragging, before we talk some
questions here. But I went to Texas Tech University and had the
honor and privilege of representing Texas Tech University,
where I believe we have about 12 schools there, and five of our
deans are women. And so I think there is some progress being
made, and obviously from listening to the panel today, I hear
that we need to make some more progress.
I want to go along a couple of question. The title of this
hearing, and we have gotten off on some interesting topics, but
Women in Academic Science and Engineering, and when you look at
some of the charts, in some areas, women are increasing in
number, and in fact a majority in coming into some of the
sciences, life sciences, and some of those. I think 52 percent,
we use that number.
And so a couple of questions, will it take us time--I mean
I come from a tradition--and probably what would happen today--
I have two grandsons. I had two sons, and so we gave them
Lincoln Logs and erector sets and microscopes and stuff like
that, and if I had a granddaughter, I would want to be dress
her up and dolls, and so we kind of set a precedent early on in
kind of classifying what roles that young women have, and that
is probably a maybe a mistake on granddaddy's part.
But the other piece of that is a lot of the women that are
going into the sciences and going into law and medicine, that
produces high income for them outside of the academic world.
And so is the fact that a lot of women are not staying in the
academic world related to the fact that they don't see a lot of
role models in the academic world, or is this entrepreneurial
economic opportunity out there that corporate America has
provided where women seem to be, in some fields, moving up
through the ranks a little faster? Are they being funneled out
in that way, instead of staying in academia?
Dr. Shalala.
Dr. Shalala. You know, we didn't find that at all. We found
that they were being turned off and discouraged moving up.
There is just no way the economic incentives of the private
sector is pulling off that many women, that there really are
barriers here and discouragement and a lack of encouragement
and a lack of mentorship, a lack of strategies, narrow search
processes.
What my colleague here was talking about is, you know, if
you really want to find a minority woman in science, you can't
just pick some narrow field that you are going to recruit in.
You have got to broaden your recruiting opportunities, and I am
sure that Dr. Campbell found that in physics as well, that you
have to try different strategies.
But you know, it is just--we are not convinced it is a pool
problem. We are convinced that there are barriers and bias from
both women and men that we have to overcome. Economic
incentives help. Economic incentives, you know, as a
businessman, changes behavior. And if we are going to plow
billions of dollars into science in this country, our only
issue is, not that you have got to hire women to do it, but you
have got to hire the best people. And if that is the standard,
we believe that women will get a fair shot. And we just have to
make sure that we don't have those barriers there.
All of us have stories from our own careers, of crazy
things that people have said to us, and we are lucky we are
here today.
Mr. Neuberger. Dr. Olsen.
Dr. Olsen. Yeah, I love data, okay, and there is this
wonderful chart from Nelson and Rodgers, and it is in biology,
where they show that both males and females in 2002 were equal
numbers in terms of getting their Ph.D.s. But then when you saw
the first faculty position, it was something like 70 percent
males and 30 percent women. And yet, they are there, and they
are asking did you want the faculty position or did you want to
go elsewhere? And it turned out that the women were just not
getting interviewed. And the women that did make it to the
interview stage were then very successful in terms of getting
the job, getting back to your report, in terms of the implicit
thing.
But salary still is an issue, and this is true in academic,
but throughout, women tend to make less salaries for the same
positions as males. And what is interesting--and I will do a
story--but when I was at my university, it was a research-
intensive university. I had my own NIH grant, and I was co-PI
on the grant, the PI on the NIH grant was out, and I realized
that the post-docs on the grant that I was co-PI on were making
more money than I was, and it was a shocker, and of course. It
was--my personality--I got a raise! But the thing is that we
don't know a lot of this stuff, and so it is really, again, the
culture, the mentoring, in terms of what the salary is.
Dr. Shalala. The professional journals have had to take
off--send out the journal articles blind to make sure that you
could overcome the bias. Members of my panel told me they used
their initials early in their careers when they sent out their
journal articles to make sure they got a fair review of those
articles.
Dr. Campbell. I would like to come back to your question
about is it the economic incentives? And all of my anecdotal
evidence in talking to people who have decided to go out, the
answer is no. That is not what the incentive is.
I would also like to come back to the question of
mentoring. Mentoring is very important. This is one of the
lessons that we have learned from ADVANCE. And in my
department, we have now instituted formal mentoring for all
junior faculty. In addition, we do take into account junior
faculty's mentoring of students in their tenure-review process,
so mentoring is something that is taken very seriously.
I also want to come back to your question about how long is
it going to take? Again, this was something that was sponsored
by NSF and the Department of Energy. The American Physical
Society hosted a meeting of all of the chairs of physics
departments, and I served on the panel for that, exactly
addressing this kind of issue. And out of that meeting was a
stated goal that we want to double the number of women in
physics departments in 15 years. And the 15 years allows us to
say there are two components to this problem: there is the here
and the right now, and this is something that is being
addressed with ADVANCE. And there is what are we going to do
for training students who are coming up? What are we going to
do to for undergraduates and graduate students and post-docs?
Attention has to be placed there as well.
And finally, I can't not make a football comment. Michigan
also has a football team, and it is my personal goal, I want a
physics department which is going to make our football players
proud to say I am from Michigan.
Mr. Neuberger. Dr. Hrabowski.
Dr. Hrabowski. Two points, you know, you may not know it,
but a part of the mentoring for women is teaching them how to
negotiate. It is very interesting that guys go in being much
more aggressive, and older guys like us can be so responsive to
the aggressiveness and just assume that the woman doesn't need
it because she didn't ask for it. So the negotiating process is
very important in all of this work.
And the other point is, in terms of things that can be
done, I think that--and it was something that Dr. Campbell just
said--the idea of using the societies, the different
disciplinary society, and having leveraging with NSF with
physics and chemistry and biology and the different subgroups
to have sessions that focus on this, because if people haven't
been around the discussions and a part of it, they tend to see
it as something that is not as serious an issue. And it needs
to be known that the country sees it as a very serious issue.
Chairman Baird. We are going to probably have time for just
two more sets of questions, and then--this time, Pavlov was
right. We do have votes coming up now.
Having been in academia and having been through a period
when diversity training and sensitivity training was big at my
university, followed by a drop in enrollment--totally
unrelated, just the demographic bubble went down that year--and
then it became necessary to lay off a bunch of faculty, and it
was taken for granted that the most recently hired faculty
would be the first to go, which meant persons of color and
women, and as a untenured white, male faculty member, I said we
ought to stop that, which meant, frankly, that the women behind
me would have been able to jump me. But it was the right thing
to do, but you should have seen the outcry. This was within two
year of this sensitivity-training workshop, and then suddenly,
it is like wait a minute. It only goes so far here, bringing
people on board.
The reason I preface with that without a hammer--it seems,
you know, academia likes to think of itself as superior to
every other institution in the world, but we have cited
examples of police, military, business, et cetera, that I think
is actually much more progressive than the academic world. And
my question would be what kind of hammer can we use or should
we use, and relate it to Dr. Shalala's observation about NCAA
or Title IX. What would enforcement of Title IX--Dr. Ritter
noted this--what would that enforcement look like? So what can
we do to put some pressure on, from not just a positive model,
which I think are very meritorious like the ADVANCE program,
but real-world, pressure, consequences if you don't do it from
federal funding or other operations.
Dr. Ritter. In terms of enforcement, I think there are a
couple of things. One is I think that presidents and provosts
need to be willing to hold their deans accountable, and deans
need to be willing to hold their chairs accountable for things
like whether or not they have diverse pools or their
willingness to invite diverse candidates to campus, for their
ability to meet goal that have been set and agreed upon. Unless
you are willing to say you can't hire next year because you
haven't made a good-faith effort to diversify your pool, then
it is not going to have.
Chairman Baird. You have got to have that kind of top-down
consequences.
Dr. Ritter. You have to have that kind of accountability.
And in terms of Title IX enforcement, I do think we need to be
thoughtful abut what effective compliance would look like
there. I know there is a lot of debate about this right now,
and I don't know that the right model is going to be something
like the athletic model, but we can only improve on what we are
doing now, because currently, virtually nothing is being done.
Dr. Shalala. We talked in our panel, and we have some
language in here about developing an NCAA type of organization,
something between the universities and the government that
would, as opposed to using a government agency as such, that
would thoughtfully develop the goals and be realistic about it
in terms of marching towards a much fairer system, and that,
certainly, is worth looking into.
Unlike the NCAA, though, the Federal Government really does
have the clout of money, requiring that--I mean NSF is a model
for calling in department chairs. These are pretty
straightforward things to do, but we should not be focusing
just on NSF. The big dollars are in the National Institutes of
Health, and if the NIH, through their institutions, aren't
fully participating, then we don't have a chance of getting
this done in the major research universities.
Chairman Baird. Well put. Dr. Campbell, you were going to
say something?
Dr. Campbell. Yes, our department did have a Title IX
audit. NASA came in and audited our department for Title IX
compliance, and the effect of that was almost nothing, that we
were totally in----
Chairman Baird. Shucks, I thought you were going to say it
rocked us.
Dr. Campbell. So perhaps there are places where they
clearly are in violation of the law, clearly are in violation
of Title IX, but I think it is, as you said in your
introduction, a much subtler problem, and has to do with the
climate, and it does not have to do with a flagrant violation
of the law.
Dr. Hrabowski. We have got to get people to believe that
this is not just the right thing to do, but it is the best
thing for science. And it seems to me that hammers don't work
the same way in universities. This is my sixteenth year as
President. Believe me; I know what I am talking about. But
money does talk, and the idea of leveraging the federal
funding, NASA, NIH, NSF, in such a way that you can encourage
institutions that are making a difference in this area through
grants and training, for example, that will be connected to the
research infrastructure in such a way that places will want to
be in this. I mean places want to be a part of NSF with the
ADVANCE grant. ``Every time I go to speak at a university, the
first question they ask is how can you talk to us about what
you're doing with NSF?'' Presidents ask me, ``Talk to my
faculty, engineers, and tell us how great it is and what it
does.'' I think if we can use the mechanisms we have and
leverage opportunities to bring different national agencies
together, institutions listen to the National Science
infrastructure because they have the money, and there are ways
of doing it without it coming across like a hammer, but rather
in a way of highlighting the best in training and diversity and
in science infrastructure.
Dr. Shalala. I absolutely agree with that. I really think
that to get this right we have to understand the culture that
we come from and those incentives will make a difference. But
it is also professional organization and accrediting
organizations, and in addition to the major funders, the
professional organizations have come a long way, but they have
a long way to go yet.
Dr. Olsen. But it is not just good for science, it is good
for America. It is good for our economy and well being, and
that is the point that needs to be infused throughout.
Chairman Baird. I think that might be an appropriate final
comment for this hearing. I really have been enlightened and
inspired by this hearing. I am grateful for the witnesses. We,
unfortunately, have to go vote, but rather than holding you
here for another set of questions, because the votes can take
longer than we would like, I would just express my gratitude on
the part of the Committee for all of your work on this, and we
look forward to pursuing this vigorously in the future, and
this hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Donna E. Shalala, Professor of Political Science;
President, University of Miami
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Many of you emphasized that as higher education administrators,
you do not mandate change but encourage it in little ways at all
levels. What would be the worst thing(s) Congress could do
legislatively? What would be the best thing(s) Congress could do to
help improve the environment for female faculty in S&P
A1. The worst thing Congress could do legislatively would be to mandate
a one-size fits all solution for all university campuses: For example,
mandating that the professoriate be 50 percent women. While such a goal
would be desirable, using a federal mandate to obtain it is not. The
effect of a de facto quota would likely be to increase tensions among
faculty and thus actually worsen the campus climate for women.
The Beyond Bias and Barriers report recommends several actions at
the federal level. One of the primary recommendations is for Congress
to mandate that federal grant-making agencies implement a Title IX
review of recipient organizations. Such a review would be based on data
collected by individual institutions and organized and maintained by an
inter-institutional NCAA-like oversight organization. Congress could
partially fund such an inter-institutional effort, and those
institutions that participate could be provided technical assistance
with data collection procedures and compliance with anti-discrimination
laws. In conjunction with regular Congressional oversight hearings of
federal enforcement and granting agencies, such an approach could be
very effective in encouraging adequate enforcement of anti-
discrimination laws.
Another option is for Congress to increase funding for federal
agency programs, such as the NSF ADVANCE program, whose goal is to test
a variety of data collection and anti-discrimination compliance
programs in situ on campuses across the Nation. Such a strategy has
been shown to not only stimulate research at our nation's universities
and colleges but also to improve the recruitment and retention of women
in science and engineering programs and careers. To support campus
efforts, Congress could request that federal agencies support regular
national meetings of scientists and engineers to disseminate the
strategies found to be successful through such research efforts.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. When asked about how medicine has overcome biases barriers present
in science and engineering, you mentioned a clinical track in the
University of Miami's medical program that many women choose. Can you
explain this clinical track and explain how it differs from the other
tracks available in the school of medicine? Why does this track attract
more women than other tracks?
A1. The University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine's clinical-
educator track: The clinical-educator track at the Miller School of
Medicine is intended for faculty members whose primary professional
activities are teaching and clinical services, as opposed to research.
The intent of having different tracks is to allow promotion criteria to
match the professional focus of a faculty member. Faculty members who
focus their time and talent on clinical and education duties would not
be promoted if the only criteria were based on achievements in
research. In the clinical-educator track, promotion is based on
tangible contributions in clinical-education. For the assistant and
associate professor level, impact should be in the local, regional and
State environment; national contributions are required to achieve full
professor status.
Current implementation of a track system remains challenging
nationwide. The definition of tangible contribution in education is
elusive. In research, contributions are literally counted, in terms of
numbers of publications, the prestige of the journal in which faculty
members publish and sustained level of grant funding. We lack similar
quantifiable means of measuring education impact. Thus, even in current
clinical-educator tracks, promotion standards remain slanted toward
publication and grant funding.
Over time, the goal is to align promotion and tenure criteria to
reward educators' academic impact. This would mean a promotion review
that recognizes factors such as curriculum development, innovation in
clinical care or education, and impact on policy and funding of medical
education.
Why does this track attract more women than other tracks?
Nationwide, women in academic medicine are more likely than men to
choose roles in clinical care and education rather than research. At
UM, more than half of women faculty members define their roles as
mainly in teaching and clinical services. Factors contributing to this
trend in professional choice may include the time pressures of familial
responsibilities and child-bearing, a lack of female role models and
mentors in academic medicine, and perceived barriers for women to
succeed in research.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Kathie L. Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. Another witness from the panel, Myron Campbell, recommended that
the National Science Foundation (NSF) create a postdoctoral fellowships
program analogous to its Graduate Research Fellowships program to
enable faculty to draw from a larger pool of applicants. One of the
findings from the ADVANCE program has been that open, broad based
searches result in a larger, more diverse pool of applicants. Dr.
Campbell argued that while universities can implement this process on
their own with respect to recruiting new assistant professors, most
don't have the resources to do the same for post-docs, who are most
often recruited through small, informal networks to the exclusion of
everyone else. Has NSF considered creating a postdoctoral research
fellowships program? Please elaborate on any plans to create such a
program or explanation for not pursuing this option.
A1. The National Science Foundation (NSF) currently has several
postdoctoral research fellowship programs managed within the research
Directorates and Offices (see attached list of programs). For example,
the Directorates for Biological Sciences (BIO) and for Social,
Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) currently jointly sponsor a
program of Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowships and Supporting
Activities that provides postdoctoral fellowships, research starter
grants, and travel grants. This program was evaluated in 2004 by SRI
International (EEC 9815246), which concluded that the program was
meeting its broad goal of preparing scientists from under-represented
ethnic groups at advanced levels for academic positions and leadership
in industry and government. In addition, many postdoctorals are
supported by NSF through research awards made to university faculty
members and to research centers.
We also note that several ADVANCE projects are working on the
development of systemic approaches to facilitate the identification of
a more diverse pool of talented potential postdoctoral fellows for
universities to track and develop as future faculty. For example, in
late 2006, Rice University created a National Female Ph.D. and
Postdoctoral Database (http://www.advance.tice.edu/database/), drawing
from applicants to its ADVANCE-funded workshop on ``Negotiating the
Ideal Faculty Position.'' At this time there are over 700 scholars in
the database, and hundreds of visitors to the site have made use of it
as part of recruitment outreach. Taking a different approach, the
University of Illinois Chicago ADVANCE program recruited nationally in
order to bring in a cohort of ADVANCE-supported postdoctorals to
increase the number of well qualified female candidates for faculty
positions.
Q2. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities
receiving any federal financial assistance. A 2004 GAO Report (GAO-04-
639) found that only Department of Education had conducted the required
periodic compliance reviews, and that the granting agencies had not
effectively coordinated the implementation of compliance reviews.
Please describe how NSF has responded to the GAO recommendations in the
three years since the report, including any plans to implement periodic
compliance reviews as well as efforts to coordinate implementation with
other granting agencies.
A2. As for the second question, NSF takes seriously its responsibility
to ensure that the educational and research institutions that it funds
comply fully with Title IX. Every grant awarded by NSF includes a
clause whereby the grantee contractually agrees to comply fully with
Title IX.
In addition, in accordance with the recommendations in the GAO
report, we have been working diligently to develop a post award Title
IX compliance program. To that end, since the issuance of the GAO
report, we have been exchanging ideas and information with other
agencies that are establishing or refining their post-award compliance
review programs, such as NASA and the Department of Energy, to ensure
that the reviews are meaningful and effective.
In 2005, NSF conducted an on-site post-award Title IX compliance
review at Columbia University. After the review was completed, we
assessed our newly-developed approach to conducting compliance reviews,
and engaged in additional dialogue with other Federal grant-making
agencies. NSF determined that a more coordinated Federal approach to
such reviews might be appropriate to ensure consistency, and to avoid
the prospect of agencies engaging in duplicative efforts.
Subsequently, NSF had a series of conversations with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy suggesting that the National Science and
Technology Council (``NSTC'') take on the development of a coordinated
Federal research agency approach to Title IX post-award compliance
reviews--the NSTC Research Business Models Subcommittee of the
Committee on Science has been tasked with this coordination.
Question submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Many of you emphasized that as higher educational administrators,
you do not mandate change but encourage it in little ways at all
levels. What would be the worst thing(s) Congress could do
legislatively? What would be the best thing(s) Congress could do to
help improve the environment for female faculty in S&E?
A1. It appears that this question is addressed to the three current
higher educational administrators that were on the panel; Drs. Donna
Shalala, Freeman Hrabowski, and Myron Campbell.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, President, University of
Maryland, Baltimore County
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Many of you emphasized that as higher educational administrators,
you do not mandate change but encourage it in little ways at all
levels. What would be the worst thing(s) Congress could do
legislatively? What would be the best thing(s) Congress could do to
help improve the environment for female faculty in S&E?
A1. Congressional legislative action on behalf of women in science and
engineering has profound implications, not only for those it seeks to
benefit, but also for those charged with its enforcement. Consequently,
the worst thing Congress could do is produce expedient legislation not
informed by the substantial body of research that addresses the unique
challenges women in these fields are facing in America's colleges and
universities. Responsible legislative action should reflect current
studies in the field in order to create effective, multi-faceted,
approaches to achieving gender parity in science and engineering (S&E).
Women's full potential in academic S&E across our nation will be
realized only through a long-term, bipartisan Congressional commitment
to transforming institutions of higher learning. The accumulated
disadvantages women experience in these fields reflect a powerful
history of institutional bias and discrimination in academe. In short,
such a legacy can be remedied only by sustained Congressional mandates
for compliance, expanded roles for key federal funding agencies, and
authorization of additional targeted resources for critical
initiatives. Accordingly, Congress should consider taking the following
actions to improve the environment for women in S&E:
1) Continue Funding the NSF ADVANCE Grant Program: Through its
effective administration of institutional transformation grants, the
NSF ADVANCE Program has demonstrated a record of excellence in
establishing innovative models and comprehensive programs that have
substantially increased the participation of women faculty in S&E. The
NSF ADVANCE Program's funding of transformation initiatives across a
broad spectrum of institutions (liberal arts colleges, community
colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, women's
colleges, and research universities) has been fundamental to its
success. Consequently, to ensure the national impact of these efforts,
Congress should continue funding the NSF ADVANCE Program as a way to
engage many more colleges and universities in this vital enterprise.
2) Expand Funding to Sustain and Replicate Success of NSF ADVANCE
Campuses: In oral testimony before the House Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education, I stressed the importance of expanding NSF
ADVANCE funding in order to sustain and replicate the success of
exemplary ADVANCE campuses. NSF provides no funding for sustainability
and offers only modest support for narrow replication efforts through
the Partnerships for Adaptation, Implementation, and Dissemination
(PAID). The lack of federal funding in these areas jeopardizes the
future impact of the NSF ADVANCE Program because many successful
campuses do not have sufficient funding of their own to sustain and
replicate their efforts. As the initial rounds of NSF support end for
ADVANCE campuses, we are quickly learning that a short-sighted approach
to continued funding is stalling our efforts to help meet the
continuing demand for a highly educated S&E workforce. I urge Congress
to expand the mandate of the NSF ADVANCE Program to provide funding for
sustaining and replicating exemplary campus initiatives. The recent
reassignment of the NSF ADVANCE Grant Program to the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources under new leadership offers an
unprecedented opportunity for collaboration with undergraduate and
graduate science education initiatives.
3) Establish Dedicated Federal Funding of Scholarship Programs and
Training Grants for Under-represented Minority Undergraduate and
Graduate Students in STEM: Although encouraged by the modest increase
in NSF's overall funding, I am concerned that NSF resources for science
education have decreased in recent years. Efforts to remedy the crisis
in science education funding for innovative programs have been caught
in a series of fiscal Continuing Resolutions in Congress. In addition,
current limitations for federal scholarship funding and training grants
have significantly impeded full participation by under-represented
minorities in S&E. I strongly urge Congress to look at successful
training models such as the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program at UMBC.
4) Support Full Anti-Discrimination Compliance and Enforcement: Meeting
the Nation's demand for a well-trained and inclusive S&E workforce
requires greater diligence in anti-discrimination compliance and
enforcement efforts. Federal agencies (especially NSF, NIH, and NSA)
should leverage their funding to provide incentives for research
universities to recruit, support, and advance women and minority
faculty in STEM. This incentive-based approach should be coupled with a
mandate that federal agencies extend the enforcement of anti-
discrimination laws at universities through regular compliance reviews
as a condition of continued funding. Expanding the application of Title
IX of the Civil Rights Act beyond athletics to include academic areas
as well, especially in S&E, would result in even more substantial
advances for gender equity.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Submitted to Myron Campbell, Chair, Physics Department, University of
Michigan
These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not
responded to by the time of publication.
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Many of you emphasized that as higher educational administrators,
you do not mandate change but encourage it in little ways at all
levels. What would be the worst thing(s) Congress could do
legislatively? What would be the best thing(s) Congress could do to
help improve the environment for female faculty in S&E?
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Gretchen Ritter, Professor of Government; Director, Center
for Women's and Gender Studies, University of Texas at Austin
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Many of you emphasized that as higher educational administrators,
you do not mandate change but encourage it in little ways at all
levels. What would be the worst thing(s) Congress could do
legislatively? What would be the best thing(s) Congress could do to
help improve the environment for female faculty in S&E?
A1. The worse thing that Congress could do is to say that this is just
a problem for the universities. Taking a completely hands-off approach
is not likely to result in significant efforts to improve the situation
of women faculty in under-represented fields on many campuses.
One of the best things Congress could do legislatively is to ask
for greater accountability from universities. Research universities
depend upon federal research funding. Colleges and universities at all
levels receive other forms of federal educational assistance. In order
to continue to receive this assistance, Congress should ask
universities to be accountable in providing equal opportunity and a
supportive work environment for female faculty in under-represented
fields. Applying Title IX standards in academia (as we do in sports)
would create positive incentives for universities to recruit and retain
talented women in science and engineering.