Letter to Pusey: Harvard Didn't Pass

(The following are excerpts from a 22 page letter from John Bynoe, HEW's Regional Civil Rights Director, to former President Pusey detailing the ways in which Harvard's hiring plans discriminate against women within the University. The tables are taken from Harvard's Affirmative Action Plan as accepted by HEW February 11, 1971. "C.A.'s" refers to Corporation Appointments. "S&W" refers to salary and wage employees.)

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS December 31, 1970

Dr. Nathan M. Pusey

President

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Dr. Pusey:

On September 28, 1970, Harvard University received the first installment of deficiencies revealed in the compliance review which began in the Spring of 1970. At our September meeting it was brought to your attention that this office had received a number of allegations of sex discrimination in employment opportunities at Harvard. At that time you were advised that the review would continue until these allegations were investigated. This letter addresses itself to findings made to date in the area of sex discrimination.

In September the review team was told that the administrative structure of your institution was of unusual complexity, and that it was administered on the concept of departmental autonomy, especially in areas related to the compliance review. The statement that (at Harvard) "every tub sits on its own bottom" (referring to departments) has been substantiated by our experience in acquiring and assembling data during the review.

This office has received many inquiries concerning the period of time it has taken to complete this review in relation to the length of time needed at other institutions. The comparison can easily be made that the review at Harvard is similar to reviewing 22 separate colleges or universities.

Equal Opportunity for Women in Academic Positions

An analysis of computer-printouts furnished by the University, review of personnel records, and information acquired through interviews has generally substantiated several allegations of unequal employment opportunity for women at Harvard.

Many of the recruitment, placement, promotional and staffing practices at the University appear to be discriminatory purely because of sex. These practices have resulted in a definite underutilization of women in faculty positions at Harvard.

Of particular concern is the matter of women in the graduate degree programs at Harvard. Our findings support the charge that although 15 to 19 per cent of the Ph.D.'s awarded annually at Harvard to women, there exists an almost complete absence of tenured women on Harvard's faculty. Yet, many chairmen interviewed stated there was no pool of qualified women applicants for academic positions. This scarcity of women faculty in general is especially noticeable in the School of Education, in which roughly one third of the candidates for the Ed.D. are women; yet, women are only slightly more than 10 per cent of the school's teaching faculty. It appears, unquestionably, that Harvard looks with more favor upon the hiring of its male Ph.D. and other advanced degree recipients than it does upon the employment of its female Ph.D.'s. To deny employment opportunity to women graduates simply because they are women constitutes an undeniable violation of Executive Orders 11246 and 11375.

Admission to Ph.D. Programs

Within the time span of this investigation, this office was unable to thoroughly review admission policies to Ph.D. programs throughout the University system. However, it must be brought to your attention that admissions to advanced degree programs, in which employment as teaching assistants and research assistants is an integral part of the degree program, is covered under the authority of the Executive Orders. In addition, selection for teaching fellowships, assistantships, and other such positions is also covered by the Executive Orders. Harvard must monitor its policies and practices regarding admissions to programs in which there is a requirement or opportunity to teach or do research. Department heads must review all available records of female applicants for advanced degree programs giving special attention to the number of women interviewed, rejected, and accepted for candidacy in Ph.D. and advanced degree programs. As a minimum this review must cover the period since October 13, 1968. In each case that discrimination based even partially on sex is revealed action must be taken to eliminate all policies and practices which resulted in the discriminatory treatment. Department heads must determine the current availability of any female candidates who were victims of this treatment and give priority for admission to any of these candidates found to be qualified and available.

Recruitment Practices

Remarks made by department chairmen during the interviews indicated practices which contribute to the situation of women at Harvard. The department chairmen indicated that the primary recruitment sources for academic positions are professional meetings and conferences. Valuable employment information and contacts are exchanged at these meetings. This type of recruiting tends to be covertly discriminatory, because most of the information regarding employment possibilities is not available to persons who are not a part of this "select circle."

Since women are not in positions of faculty chairmen and high-ranking administrators, the "select circle" method of recruiting tends to perpetuate the present discriminatory staffing pattern. Unsolicited applications for faculty employment receive very little consideration or attention. In some cases they are filed away without comment. The University may be overlooking many well-qualified male and female applicants by this practice. However, this practice works mostly against female applicants as their qualifications may not come to the attention of the hiring authorities through any other method.

Harvard's screening committees, faculty committees, tenure committees, and ad hoc committees are assigned the responsibility for selection of applicants. All are uniformly made up of men. This is another factor which has an effect on retaining the sex composition of the Harvard faculty.

Interviews with the department chairman regarding the inclusion of women on their faculties indicated a lack of sensitivity on the part of persons who are crucial to the equal employment opportunities for women. There were indications that persons in the decision-making positions in regard to employment fo not use equal criteria in evaluating male and female applicants. In some instances they were totally indifferent to the whole idea of affirmatively seeking female faculty.

Executive Order 11246 as amended by E.O. 11375 requires that the same qualifications for employment be applied to both men and women. Many department chairmen who are aware that women are conspicuous by their absence in their departments do not realize they are required by the Executive Orders to rectify the situation by affirmatively recruiting women faculty.

A review of the computer-printouts for February 2, 1970 and August 31, 1970 reveals a decrease in women in every teaching position.

The review team has prepared a detailed breakdown of individual departments. This excerpt revealed that there are many departments without female teaching faculty. This condition implies that some chairmen deliberately screen out women applicants. The University must inquire into the hiring policies of all department chairmen. Particular attention must be given to those who have no or few women faculty. We realize that there are some academic disciplines in which there are very few women, but we are also aware of a long standing tradition of denying employment to women solely because they are women. Appropriate administrative machinery must be established to monitor the recruitment of faculty in any department which appears to screen out women applicants or recruits in such a way as to exclude them from consideration.

Salary Differences

The printouts furnished by the University indicated salary differences between men and women in most job classifications. The University's justification for this is that certain schools or departments are teaching subjects which call for unique qualifications, and therefore it is not appropriate to have a uniform schedule for determining salaries to be paid and qualifications to be met. In practice this has resulted in a consistent pattern of paying women less than men for comparable work.

Realizing that there are many factors which could justify these salary differences, the review team selected some of the employees in question and reviewed their personnel records. The following are comparisons of personnel data of corporate appointees as furnished by Harvard.

Example 1: Countway Library: 2 male and 4 female librarians. All have master's degrees. One male was a doctoral candidate in 1958. He was employed in 1958 and presently earns $20,000. The other male received his master's in Library Science in 1954, was employed in 1965 and earns $15,000. One female has two master's degrees. She was employed in 1969 and earns $7,200. Two females were employed in 1967 and earn $6,800 and $8,500. The other female librarian was employed in 1968 and earns $8,400. Each of the above received a salary increase in July 1970. The two males received increases of $2,000 and $1000. Two females received $500 each, one $600 and the other $332.

Example 2: Harvard University Press: 2 male and 5 female business officers. The bio-medical editor is a male employed in 1968. He has a B.A. degree and a B.S. degree and earns $19,500. The science editor is a male employed in 1959. He has an A.B. degree and an M.A. degree and earns $15,250. The executive editor is a female employed in 1945. She has a B.A. degree and an M.A. degree and earns $16,000. The managing editor is a female employed in 1967. 'She has A.B., S.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees and earns $14,000.

Example 3: Harvard College Observatory: 2 male and 2 female business officers. One female has A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. She was employed in 1957 and earns $8,500. She has received no promotion or change in status in 7 years. The other female has a B.A.; was employed in 1958 and earns $14,800. She has received no promotion or change in status in 12 years. The two males were employed in 1968. One received his B.A. from Harvard in 1936 and earns $17,280. The other male has his A.B. from Harvard in 1958 and earns $14,600.

Example 4: Faculty of Arts and Sciences Library System: In the job classification "curator" there are a male and female with no degrees listed. The male was employed in 1964 and earns $11,500. The female was employed in 1961 and earns $10,200. Also listed are a male and female with B.A. and M.A. degrees. The male was employed in 1964 and earns $12,600. The female was employed in 1962 and earns $9,600.

Example 5: In the February 1970 printout compiled by Harvard, there were listed a female assistant professor and three male assistant professors in the Business School. The female and the two males held M.B.A. degrees. The female earned $12,000. The three males earned from $12,000 to $14,000. In the August 1970 printout, this female is listed as an instructor with the same salary. Particularly noteworthy is that 9 of the 11 male instructors in that department receive higher salaries. It appears that the female's status change limits her job mobility.

The review of personnel records further substantiated the premise that women's qualifications are in most cases equal to or better than their male counterparts.

Each department chairman must review these differences and give an explanation for each. The department chairmen may wish to request the assistance of the personnel office in evaluating the S & W employees' salary differences. Immediate steps must then be taken to rectify any discrepancies that cannot be justified. Not only must there be adjustments of current salaries, but retroactive compensation must be paid where salary differential because of sex has existed since October 13, 1968.

Underutilization of Women

It appears that there is a wide underutilization of women at all levels of professional employment at Harvard. Of particular note is that group of women working under the job classification "Research Assistant" and "Research Associate" in the salary and wage category. Harvard is benefiting from the academic talents of these highly trained women while denying them status and pay commensurate with their work. An analysis of the personnel records for male and female employees in the job classification "Research Associate" and "Research Assistant" revealed that women by and large had more advanced education and related work experience than men.

One University official indicated that the reason for the lack of more men in research assistant positions is due to the relatively low salary for such positions throughout the University.

The minimum requirements for these positions are: Bachelor's degree preferably in field of research project, or equivalent experience in research environment. No previous experience required.

Some of these skills could be used in more complex jobs. Some examples of the above are as follows:

From the examination of the personnel files of 9 male research assistants in the medical school areas, it was determined that only 1 male possessed a degree beyond a bachelor's (and he was only a part-time employee), whereas 5 women had master's degrees. Most noticeable also was the large number of women who had completed advanced work beyond their basic degrees. This should be compared to