Institutionalizing Good Will

This is the fifth in a series of articles examining the recently released report on minority and women Faculty members.

Women at Harvard are generally pleased that Dean Rosovsky and the Faculty Council decided to examine why Harvard has so few women in tenured positions. But some say they are upset and confused over why the report devotes less space to women that it does to minorities when both are equally important.

When the Faculty Council first discussed the dearth of women and minorities on the Faculty last spring, its members decided that the two were very separate issues. "Minorites and women will not be discussed in a single group," the report states in its introduction. "Even though for both cases the numbers are low, the problems relating to recruitment appear so different that throughout the remainder of the report these throughout the remainder of the report these groups will be considered separately."

The report goes on to pinpoint that difference: "Women, in contrast to minorities, are found on virtually every Harvard search list today, something that was not true even a few years ago." In other words, minorities appear in very small numbers, if at all, on lists of scholars that departments draw up when making hiring decisions. Women, on the other hand, appear frequently on those lists, the report states.

But even though most departments are considering women scholars, the report notes that very few departments are actually hiring them. "The problem which still confronts Harvard is that tenured women (unlike tenured Black and Hispanic faculty) are statistically underrepresented." Of Harvard's 356 tenured Faculty members, only a dozen--3.4 per cent--are women.

The report lists 13 departments that have a smaller proportion of women among their tenured Faculty members than the proportion of women in the pool of available candidates. Anthropology, Biology, English, Fine Arts, Government, History, Psychology and Social Relations, and Sociology are among the departments that "underutilize" women. And if women were tenured in proportion to their availability, humanities would show the largest increases because the pools of candidates are largest, the report states.

In trying to explain why women do not receive tenure even though they appear on final lists, the report states, "Some observers feel that male dominated departments have in the past been reluctant to award the ultimate prize of scholarship--tenure--to women; while they were permitted to serve in junior positions there were always reasons why full colleagueship seemed inappropriate. It is difficult to generalize about topics which have such personal overtones, but to the extent that sex-stereotyping existed in the past, the slow but real growth in the number of tenured women suggest that it may be on the decline."

But many women don't agree. "At the departmental level there is still a very sexist attitude," one woman administrator who asked not to be identified says, adding, "In a sense you can't really blame Harvard for the minority problem because the pool (of available minority scholars for tenured posts) is very small. But you can blame Harvard for the women's situation because the women are there."

Anne S. Ramsay, director of budgets and chairman of the Committee on the Concerns of Women (CCW) at Harvard-Radcliffe, says that many women on the Faculty feel uncomfortable. "There is tension, and it's based on gender." Although Ramsay is not a member of the Faculty, CCW includes many women professors. Many--especially junior Faculty women--have expressed their discomfort, saying they feel awkward when, for example, they walk into a department meeting that includes only men. "Women don't feel the camaraderie," Ramsay explains. "Men instantly feel comfortable with one another." Many women believe that the report's recommendations, although well-intended, are too general, and that they ignore factors such as sexism that may prevent women who appear on departmental lists from gaining tenured professorships. Noting that "the procedures used in the recruitment and appointment of women have produced excellent results over the last decade at the non-tenured level," the report states that "at the tenured level, results have been uneven, suggesting the need for more aggressive and responsive recruitment strategies on the part of those departments presently underutilizing women."

In a section of concluding recommendations, the report suggests the following: "In departments where there is statistically significant underutilization of women, special effort must be made to attract the largest possible number of the strongest women candidates. The Dean should continue to meet with the chairmen of these departments, especially when a tenured position is available, in order to discuss the most effective ways of including women candidates before search committees begin their work.

"Large departments where utilization of women meets the current Federally-defined standards will be encouraged to continue their ongoing ability to recruit and make offers to the best qualified women candidates for non-tenured and tenured position."

Noting that the report's recommendations for increasing the number of minorities on Faculty are detailed, some women said they felt slighted by the study. "We need more specific recommendations like those on the minority side," one woman administrator who asked not to be identified says, adding that almost all the recommendations for minorities are appropriate for women.

"I think Harvard is ready not to fall back on technical underutilization as an argument," another administrator says, explaining that departments should not be satisfied simply to have women on their senior Faculty in proportions commensurate with their numbers in the national pools. "I'm hoping we can get to the point where we're not looking so much at numbers," she added.

Several women, however, praise the suggestions that apply to both women and minorities. The recommendations include reserving two visiting professorships each year specifically for women and minority scholars and allowing departments to request the creation of new professorships when no position is available for an outstanding minority or woman scholar.

CCW is currently formulating a set of its own recommendations for increasing the number of women Faculty members. The three-year-old group plans to forward its ideas to the Faculty Council and hopes the Faculty will consider the suggestions when it discusses the minority and women Faculty study at its December meeting. One woman administrator, who is also a member of the ad hoc committee, suggests appointing an advocate for women and minorities on every Faculty search committee.

Despite their criticisms of the report, most women praise the study for bringing an important issue to the Faculty's attention. As a result, many believe there is reason to be optimistic. The best thing about the report, Ramsay says, "is that it exists. It may engender a great deal of discussion. I think that can only be constructive because the more one questions what's been going on, the more we'll understand each other."

And one woman administrator concludes, "I think we have some good will on the part of some members of the Faculty, but we need to institutionalize that good will." WOMEN FACULTY AT HARVARD 1977-78  1978-79  1979-80   Total  Women  Total  Women  Total  Women   No.  %  No.  %  No.  % Tenure  352  13  3.7  352  11  3.1  356  12  3.4 Ladder  221  46  20.8  280  47  20.4  222  44  19.8 Other  76  35  46.1  88  34  38.6  91  34  37.4 Total  649  94  14.5  670  92  13.7  669  90  13.5

WOMEN FACULTY CENSUS 1979-80 (as a percentage of the faculty)   Tenure  Ladder  Other  Total HARVARD  3.4  19.8  37.4  13.5 MICHIGAN  6.8  25.0  28.6  10.3 M.I.T.  5.2  17.2    9.7 PRINCETON  3.7  20.4  25.0  10.9 STANFORD  6.3  25.7    10.9 YALE  4.5  23.0    13.4

WOMEN FACULTY CENSUS 1979-80 (as a percentage of the faculty)   Tenure  Ladder  Other  Total HARVARD  3.4  19.8  37.4  13.5 MICHIGAN  6.8  25.0  28.6  10.3 M.I.T.  5.2  17.2    9.7 PRINCETON  3.7  20.4  25.0  10.9 STANFORD  6.3  25.7    10.9 YALE  4.5  23.0    13.4