FacultyDiversity

Promoting
Gender Diversity
in the Faculty:
What Higher
Education
UnionsCan DoA Division of the American Federation of Teachers
RANDI WEINGARTEN, President
Antonia Cortese, Secretary-Treasurer
LORRETTA JOHNSON, Executive Vice President
Higher Education Program and Policy Council
Chair: SANDRA SCHROEDER, AFT Vice President, AFT Washington
Vice Chair: DERRYN MOTEN, Alabama State University Faculty-Staff Alliance
BARBARA BOWEN, AFT Vice President, Professional Staff Congress, City University of New YorkPHILLIP SMITH, AFT Vice President, United University Professions, State University of New YorkTOM AUXTER, United Faculty of Florida
JASON BLANK, Rhode Island College Chapter/AFT
ELAINE BOBROVE, United Adjunct Faculty of New Jersey
ORA JAMES BOUEY, United University Professions
JOHN BRAXTON, Faculty and Staff Federation of the Community College of Philadelphia
PERRY BUCKLEY, Cook County College Teachers Union
CHARLES CLARKE, Monroe Community College Faculty Association
ADRIENNE EATON, Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters
FRANK ESPINOZA, San Jose/Evergreen Faculty Association
CARL FRIEDLANDER, California Federation of Teachers Community College Council
JAMES GRIFFITH, University of Massachusetts Faculty Federation
BONNIE HALLORAN, Lecturers’ Employee Organization, University of Michigan
MARTIN HITTELMAN, California Federation of Teachers
ARTHUR HOCHNER, Temple Association of University Professionals
KRISTEN INTEMANN, Associated Faculty of Montana State, Bozeman
BRYAN KENNEDY, AFT-Wisconsin
HEIDI LAWSON, Graduate Employees’ Organization, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDONALD, Henry Ford Community College Federation of Teachers
GREG MULCAHY, Minnesota State College Faculty
MARK RICHARD, United Faculty of Miami-Dade College
DAVID RIVES, AFT Oregon
JULIETTE ROMANO, United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology
ELLEN SCHULER MAUK, Faculty Association at Suffolk Community College
ELINOR SULLIVAN, University Professionals of Illinois
DONNA SWANSON, Central New Mexico Employees Union
NICHOLAS YOVNELLO, Council of New Jersey State College Locals
Higher Education Diversity Working GroupDERRYN MOTEN, Chair, Alabama State University Faculty-Staff Alliance
ORA JAMES BOUEY, United University Professions
PERRY BUCKLEY, Cook County College Teachers UnionFRANK ESPINOZA, San Jose/Evergreen Faculty Association
KRISTEN INTEMANN, Associated Faculty of Montana State, Bozeman
JOHN PITTMAN, Professional Staff Congress
SANDRA SCHROEDER, AFT Vice President, AFT Washington© 2011 American Federation of Teachers, afl-cio (AFT). Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies ofthis work for nonprofit educational purposes, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost, and that the author, source
and copyright notice are included on each copy.

FacultyDiversity

Table of Contents
Foreword | 3
Statement of Purpose | 4
Barriers to Diversity | 8
Barriers to Gender Equity in Academe | 10
Best Practices and Recommendations | 19
Activities to Promote Gender Diversity | 20
Endnotes | 28

“Theserecommendations
for action are
based on the fantastic
work many of ouraffiliates alreadyhave undertaken
to create a morejust and equitableworkplace.”

2 | AFT higher education

Foreword

The American Federation of Teachers has a long and richhistory of supporting affirmative action and equity for a diverse
faculty corps. In 2008, the AFT took another important step in thisdirection by enacting a resolution that not only reaffirmed theorganization’s commitment to diversity in higher education, butalso called for an examination of impediments to faculty and staff
diversity; an analysis of best practices to achieve diversity; and theprovision of assistance to locals in implementing programs andprocedures to ensure that all highly qualified people are welcomed
into the academy.
The year 2010 saw the AFT issue its first report in furtherance of the resolution,
Promoting Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Faculty: What Higher Education Unions
Can Do. What you are now holding is the second report, which focuses on gender
diversity. Like the first report, this document outlines the barriers that women facewith regard to educational pathways, hiring and retention, and it makes suggestions
about what local unions can do to increase gender diversity at their individual
institutions. These recommendations for action are based on the fantastic work
many of our affiliates already have undertaken to create a more just and equitableworkplace.
Many people worked very hard to make this report possible. The AFT Higher
Education staff put in numerous hours of research and writing to produce it, andthey were aided by invaluable feedback from the members of an AFT Higher
Education working group on diversity, and from members of the AFT Higher
Education program and policy council. Finally, of course, we are indebted to themany activists at our locals who have worked tirelessly to make visible and confront
the challenges women in the higher education workforce face today.
Sandra Schroeder
Chair, AFT Higher Education Program and Policy Council

faculty diversity | 3

Statement of Purpose

In spring 2011, as this is written, public higher education is under attack as neverbefore. Public institutions have been targeted for drastic cuts in the past, but now
the attacks are aimed at the very core of the educational enterprise and at the basic
rights of college faculty and staff. This, in turn, has the potential of placing at risk thepractices and policies that have arisen on campuses around the country to diversify
the racial, ethnic and gender composition of the faculty corps. Diversity-related
efforts do cost money, of course, and periodic budget crises can create situations
in which institutions may sacrifice faculty diversity efforts on the altar of financial
exigency.
By undertaking a series of publications on diversity issues, the AFT is saying that it
is always time to take action to create and maintain a diverse faculty and staff corps.
Even in times of budgetary crisis (which seem to be all the time, these days) it iscritical to ensure that the people who staff our institutions of higher education reflect
the great diversity of our students and of the nation as a whole.
The following report focuses on educational pathways for women and on
recruitment and retention of women faculty in higher education. The report pays
particular attention to issues relevant to ensuring that the academy is a welcoming
place for women and an environment in which they can succeed in their chosen
fields. In that regard, the report offers specific recommendations for making positivechange, including:
■
■
■
■
■

Correcting inequities in compensation;
Expanding family-friendly policies on campus;
Clarifying and providing more flexibility in tenure and promotion policies;
Fostering opportunities for women in math and science; andEnsuring that women have a voice in their workplace and in their union.

Women’s Growing Role in the Faculty
During the 19th century, women began to trickle into American colleges anduniversities that had long been the bastion of affluent white men. Following WorldWar II, the trickle started to turn into what would eventually become a flood. This
began because (1) women were empowered by their large-scale entry into thelabor force during the war; (2) the development of a growing grass-roots feminist

4 | AFT higher education

movement and (3) the increasing prosperity of American households. During the
1960s, the movement for gender diversity gained further momentum as women
asserted themselves in the great social movements of that decade.
Part of the response to this activism was the advent of gender (as well as the various
ethnic) studies programs and women’s centers. This was coupled with a surge incampus-based programs to open opportunities in admissions and hiring to womenand members of underrepresented ethnic groups.
Feminist activists in 1967 prevailed upon President Lyndon B. Johnson to include
gender discrimination in a number of executive orders, which clarified the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most notable of these was Executive Order 11246,
which required employers receiving federal contracts to end discrimination in
hiring. Feminist activists in higher education used this executive order to begin
documenting and redressing inequities in hiring, promotion, and pay at colleges
and universities around the United States. This growing activism, in turn, led the
U.S. House of Representatives to pass Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, the text ofwhich reads:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded fromparticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance. …
Title IX, as well as other “affirmative action” programs were, and remain, a criticalfactor in promoting diversity on campus. A key moment in setting the parametersof affirmative action was the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case Regents of the Universityof California v. Bakke, which barred quotas but also resulted in the acceptance ofaffirmative action as a reasonable approach to diversify the student body. While the
Bakke decision dealt specifically with racial and ethnic discrimination as addressedin Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, subsequent court decisions applied similarinterpretations of law to Title IX.1 Despite (or perhaps because of ) the impact ofthese decisions, affirmative action continues to generate controversy in the politicalsystem. In addition to diversifying the academy, Title IX has been instrumental
in helping to address income disparities and inequality in hiring and promotion,but only in instances where the discrimination can be proved to be intentional.
Courts have held that Title IX cannot be used to address so-called disparate impact
discrimination.”2
As this report will demonstrate, one result of all these efforts has been acontinuing increase in the gender diversity of the student population. The ranksof underrepresented groups—especially the ranks of women—in the college anduniversity faculty have also diversified. However, it must be emphasized that
progress in faculty diversity has not kept pace with student diversity; while womenmake up more than half of the student population, their representation among thefaculty—especially full-time faculty—lags behind. Leaders of AFT Higher Education
unions are deeply concerned, both as educators and as unionists, about the pace ofefforts to increase gender diversity in higher education.

faculty diversity | 5

As educators, we know that if students are to succeed academically, they need rolemodels and mentors with whom they can identify. Scholarship has consistently
shown that campus diversity has both direct and indirect positive effects on the
education outcomes and experiences of students.3 The campus is a more welcoming
place when the diversity of the student population also is reflected by the faculty,
where underrepresented students can learn from and be mentored by faculty andstaff who share common experiences.
As scholars, we know that female faculty members have made incredible strides inextending the breadth of research in traditional disciplines, especially in the social
sciences, and are forging ahead in the development of new fields of inquiry. While
women’s and gender studies (as well as the multiplicity of ethnic studies programs)
and scholars are criticized as being “non-canonical” and contributing to thefragmentation of the academy, most of the scholars in these fields understand theirwork as re-evaluating traditional academic disciplines and creating a new, more
inclusive canon of scholarship. The research interests of women faculty have helped
provide a much deeper and more nuanced knowledge of our world—knowledge that
has in turn created alternative political perspectives.
Finally, faculty diversity is a key issue to our members as unionists. We see theprocess of effectuating a diverse faculty and staff as an essential element in achieving
a greater measure of economic and social justice in America. We recognize thatdiversity efforts, even on the part of faculty members and the union, have been
insufficient. We need to correct this. Another serious concern from a union
perspective is that a disproportionate number of female faculty members continue
to be hired as contingent rather than as full-time, tenure-track faculty, which often
marginalizes the contributions they can make to their institutions, and provides
them with grossly inadequate pay and working conditions.
The American Federation of Teachers recognizes the importance of advancing
educational diversity, and the union is proud of its efforts to support opportunities
for women and other underrepresented groups throughout the education system.
Delegates to AFT conventions have passed numerous policy resolutions in supportof diversity, including the recent resolutions that set this series of reports inmotion. The union has backed up our pro-diversity policies by putting into the field
substantial sums of money, expertise and activism to defend diversity in the face of
hostile legal and political challenges.
The union is a key player in support of state and federal legislation to expand college
diversity, such as Title IX, the federal student aid programs, the TRIO programsand the McNair graduate education program. The union also has supported loan
forgiveness for students who become higher education faculty members. To obtain
the information needed to accurately follow the progress of diversity efforts, theAFT is working for the establishment of a stronger federal student data system. Most
important, the AFT is campaigning around the country to create more full-time
faculty positions to bring full financial and professional equity to contingent faculty
members through the union’s Faculty and College Excellence (FACE) program.

6 | AFT higher education

At the same time, we believe there is much more we can do—on our own campuses,
in our own unions—to promote gender diversity. This report explores a broad arrayof obstacles that impede hiring and retaining female faculty. It also highlights anumber of activities already under way to break down these obstacles and presents along list of actions that unions may be able to undertake on their own campuses.
We recognize that most local unions may not be in a position to act on all or evenmost of these recommendations at once. But we believe it is high time to get morecoordinated and ambitious plans started, and we hope that the ideas presented here
will prompt a new wave of activity on the local level.

faculty diversity | 7

Barriers to Diversity

Overview
Despite gains in educational attainment, the representation of women among theranks of college and university faculty remains a complicated picture notable forthe underrepresentation of women in certain academic fields and the persistenceof the gender gap in compensation. Although 51 percent of all doctorates awarded
now go to women,4 they still comprise significantly less than half of the instructional
workforce. In 2003, women made up 38.3 percent of the full-time instructional staff5
and 48 percent of the part-time academic workforce.6 Within the ranks of the fulltime academic workforce in 2007, only 15.5 percent of the women had achieved
the rank of full professor, compared with 31.2 percent of the men.7 On average, amale faculty member in 2009-10 earned $87,206 while his female colleague earned
only $70,600.8 Women made up 47.3 percent of entry-level faculty (that is, assistantprofessors) in 2007.9
FIG 1. Female STEM Faculty in Four-Year Educational Institutions
By Discipline and Tenure Status, 2006
7.2%

Engineering

Tenured faculty

17.3%

Nontenured faculty

13.7%

Physical sciences

21.8%
Computer andinformation sciences

20.6%
22.8%
22.2%

Biological, agricultural andenvironmental life sciences

41.8%
0

10

20

30

40

PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY WHO ARE WOMEN
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2009, Characteristics of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States: 2006 (Detailed
Statistical Tables) (NSF 09-317) (Arlington, VA) Author’s Analysis of Table 20

8 | AFT higher education50

To be sure, the faculty has become increasingly inclusive of women over the last 60
years as a result of more and more women entering—and demanding their spacewithin—the academy, as well as college officials making efforts to recruit and retain
female faculty. But this growing inclusiveness has not been uniform across all
sectors of higher education. In the relatively flat hierarchy within public community
colleges, for example, the faculty is split evenly between the genders, and the gap
between the average compensation of male and female professors is relatively
narrow. On the other hand, the gender gaps in representation and compensation
at doctoral institutions are much wider than at other types of institutions. Looking
at the evidence, it is clear that the number of educational pathways has opened toa notable extent but there remains much work to be done in hiring and retaining a
representative number of qualified women in secure faculty positions.
Further variation can be seen at the disciplinary level: In 2003, women made up the
majority (58.3 percent) of the full-time instructional corps in the education field, but
only 9.5 percent of the full-time staff in engineering.10 It is in the science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines where the absence of women is
so glaringly noticeable. In 2006, women made up between 7.2 and 22.2 percent of
the tenured faculty in the fields of engineering; the physical sciences; computer andinformation sciences; and biological, agricultural and environmental sciences (theymade up between 17 and 42 percent of the nontenured faculty).11
Finally, women of color12 face a double challenge within the academy. As
was detailed in AFT’s previous report, Promoting Racial and Ethnic Diversity
in the Faculty: What Higher Education Unions Can Do, people of color are
underrepresented in the faculty ranks and face a number of barriers in reaching thetenure track. Women of color not only face the challenges imposed by virtue of theirgender, but also those that arise by virtue of their racial and ethnic background—in
2007, this population held less than 8 percent of all faculty positions.13
The challenge of increasing gender diversity of faculty (much like the challenge ofincreasing racial and ethnic diversity, as addressed in our previous report) lies withthe opening of the educational pathways that women follow into the academy—
particularly in the fields where women are especially underrepresented, such as
the STEM fields. As more women gain access to these education opportunities,
it becomes necessary to evaluate and enhance institutional practices around thehiring and retention of female faculty in order to address the continuing gaps inrepresentation and compensation, especially given the growing pool of qualified
female candidates. Additionally, the workplace culture of higher education needs
to be re-examined for practices, both individual and structural, that have a negative
effect on the ability of women to pursue and progress in their chosen careers.
In addition to background information about the educational pathway, hiringand retention in the context of diversity, the end of this report includes a series ofrecommendations and activities that local higher education unions can consider topromote diversity on your campuses.

faculty diversity | 9

Barriers to Gender Equity in Academe
This report addresses three major barriers to gender diversity: (1) barriers in the
educational pathways that lead to becoming a member of the faculty, (2) barriers in
the faculty hiring process, and (3) barriers to the retention of faculty members. Each
will be examined in turn.

Barriers in Educational Pathways
In this section, three specific barriers to educational pathways will be examined:■■■■

The challenges faced by women in STEM fields;
The underrepresentation of women in professional schools;
The additional barriers faced by women of color; andSexual harassment and campus climate.

As has been previously defined, the “educational pathway” is the progression fromthe start of a person’s education, from prekindergarten or kindergarten, on throughelementary, middle and high school, to undergraduate education and on throughgraduate education—in other words, the typical route a person follows to become afaculty member.
In some very important ways, the educational pathway for women into the academy
has never been more open. As was mentioned earlier, women now receive more thanhalf of the doctorates awarded. In the early 1990s, the number of bachelor’s degrees
earned by women surpassed those earned by men,14 a gap that has subsequently
widened. Across the board, women have made dramatic increases in degree
attainment.
FIG 2. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with a bachelor’s degree
or higher, by gender: March 1980-2003
35
30
25
20
Male
15
10

PERCENT

5

1980

FemaleNOTE: The Current Population
Survey (CPS) questions used to obtain
education attainment were changed
in 1992. In 1994 the survey instrument
for the CPS was changed and weights
were adjusted. For more information
see http://www.bls.census.gov.cps

1985

Total

1990

1995

2000

2003

SOURCE: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The Condition of Education 2002 (NCES
2002-025), indicator 25; and US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Surveys 1981-2003.

10 | AFT higher education

Challenges to Women in STEM fields
However, these increases are not shared across disciplines—the percentage ofwomen graduating with degrees in the STEM fields remained remarkably staticfrom 1980 to 2000. Only 1 percent of women earned a degree in mathematics in
1980-81, and that percentage dropped to 0.8 percent in 2000-01. In engineering,
the percentage of women earning a degree increased from 1.7 percent in 1980-81
to 1.8 percent in 2000-01.15 Although the exact reason for this stasis is not clear, thenumbers certainly suggest that these and other STEM fields have barely managed tokeep pace in attracting the growing number of women pursuing higher education
degrees.
While the percentage of women earning degrees in STEM fields has remained
static, the percentage of STEM degrees earned by women has actually grown. In
2006, women accounted for 59.8 percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the
biological and agricultural sciences and 51.8 percent of those in chemistry, up
from 31.2 percent and 22.5 percent respectively in 1976. Despite the growth in thepercentage of women earning bachelor’s degrees, in most STEM fields, women are
still in the minority: In 2006, they earned 44.9 percent of the bachelor’s degrees inmathematics; 41.2 percent in earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences; 20.7 percent inphysics; 19.5 percent in engineering; and 20.5 percent in computer and information
sciences.16
Once the leap is made to the graduate level, the number of degrees awarded to
women in STEM fields drops even more, notwithstanding the growth of women in
the field over the last 40 years. In 2006, women earned 47.9 percent of the doctorates
in the biological and agricultural sciences, 34.3 percent of those in chemistry, and16.6 percent in physics.17
FIG 3. Bachelor’s degrees earned by women in selected fields, 1966–2006
60
1966
1976
1986
1996
2006

50
40
30
20

PERCENT

100Biological andagriculturalsciences

Chemistry

Mathematics

Earth,
atmospheric andocean studies

Physics

Engineering

Computerscience

Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2008, Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2006 (Detailed Statistical Tables) (NSF 08-321) (Arlington,
VA), Table 11, Author’s analysis of Tables 34, 35, 38 & 39

faculty diversity | 11

FIG 4. Doctorates earned by women in selected STEM fields, 1966–2006
60
1966
1976
1986
1996
2006

50
40
30
20

PERCENT

100Biological andagriculturalsciences

Earth,
atmospheric andocean studies

Chemistry

Mathematics

ComputerscienceEngineering

Physics

Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2008, Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2006 (Detailed Statistical Tables) (NSF: 08-321) (Arlington,
VA), Table 25, Author’s analysis of Tables 34, 35, 38, & 39

Part of the explanation for the gender disparities found in the STEM fields can bedirectly linked to persistent cultural tropes that circumscribe how women—and
especially young girls—perceive themselves with regard to academics.18 Young girls
are still affected by negative stereotypes concerning their ability to do mathematics,
which also affect their aspirations to pursue science and engineering as fields ofstudy. Oftentimes, these stereotypes become internalized self-limitations. Research
has also demonstrated that young women often self-assess their math and scienceskills much lower than their male counterparts’ self-assessments, in spite of similarlevels of achievement.19
The key to overcoming these cultural stereotypes seems to lie within the classroom
environment. In environments where it is made clear that academic achievement
in mathematics and the sciences is equally obtainable for both girls and boys,
differences in performance and in self-assessment disappear. A 1999 article basedon an experiment conducted at the University of Michigan found that women’s
performance on the math section on the Graduate Record Exam improved vis-àvis their male peers if the test-takers were told there were no gender differences intest performance (as opposed to those who were told that men perform better than
women on these tests).20 However, the lack of gender diversity among the faculty in
STEM fields seems to be a self-perpetuating limitation on efforts to increase female
participation in these disciplines.21
Underrepresentation of Women in Professional Schools
Women continue to make inroads into many professional schools, but when they
arrive there for their education, the faculty charged with teaching them is notnecessarily reflective of this student population. In 2005-06, women made up slightly
less than half of all law students.22 During that same time period, women made up

12 | AFT higher education

only 36 percent of the law school faculty. Only 26 percent of full professors were
women, and only 19 percent of law school deans were women. Meanwhile, women
were overrepresented among the ranks of contract law school faculty and amonglecturers and instructors.23
A similar dynamic is evident in looking at medical schools. In 2008-09, womencomprised slightly less than half of all medical school students,24 being taught bya tenure-line faculty that was only 41 percent female—and only 18 percent of full
professors were women.25 Likewise, only 18 percent of the dentistry faculty were
women, and none were full professors. Women were slightly more represented
among the veterinary science faculty, with 46 percent of the faculty being female,including 25 percent of the full professors.26 In medical school positions, womencomprised almost half of the assistant deans, but were underrepresented elsewherein the administrative structure—despite an increase of 140 percent from 1998 to2008, only 12 percent of deans and department chairs were women.27
Finally, the same pattern asserts itself in business schools. Half of the new doctorates
in business are awarded to women, but only 36.7 percent of assistant professors andonly 17 percent of full professors are women.28 Only 16 percent of business schooldeans are women.29
These professional schools present a sharp contrast to fields that have historically
been considered more “feminine.” For example, almost 70 percent of higher
education credential librarians are women,30 as are almost 80 percent of thoseenrolled in master’s of library and information science programs.31
Additional Barriers for Minority and Low-Income Women
Particular attention must be paid to women from disadvantaged backgrounds,
because their life circumstances often complicate the educational challenges they
already confront by virtue of their gender. Women of color face a dual discriminationin which their racial and ethnic backgrounds compound the difficulties arising fromtheir gender. African-American and Hispanic women have higher than averagehigh school dropout numbers32 and lower than average high school completion
numbers,33 even if these numbers have been trending downward.34 Despite thesechallenges, women of color are still more likely than their male counterparts toreceive an associate’s35 or bachelor’s36 degree.
Women also are more likely than men to experience one or more factors that put
them at risk for not completing their higher education. In 2000-01, more than 60
percent of low-income37 students were women, and almost 70 percent of single
parents were women.38 Women were far more likely than men to cite a change infamily status and conflicts at home or personal problems as reasons for leaving
postsecondary education, which is indicative of the cultural family-related burdens
placed on women that may affect their education. They were also more likely to citeother financial reasons as a reason for leaving.
Sexual Harassment and Campus Climate
Despite a significant amount of attention paid to the problem of sexual harassment

faculty diversity | 13

on college campuses, it continues to occur and to have an impact on the ability ofwomen to succeed in higher education. The American Association of University
Women found that 62 percent of female college students reported being sexuallyharassed on campus.39 Seven percent of students (both male and female) reported
being harassed by a faculty member.40 As a consequence of sexual harassment, 16
percent of female victims reported finding it hard to study or pay attention in class, 9
percent dropped or skipped classes, and 27 percent avoided particular buildings orplaces on campus.41
Barriers in the Faculty Hiring Process
As women make the transition from graduate or professional schools into the faculty,
they face a number of challenges in the hiring process. These barriers include:
■
■
■
■
■

Inequities in compensation and the persistent “wage gap”;
Inadequate family-friendly policies;
Lack of standard and transparent processes;
Structural issues brought on by the academic staffing crisis; andLack of respect for research on women and minorities.

Inequitable Compensation and Wage Gaps
Studies have consistently shown a persistent gap in compensation for men andwomen in the academy. This gap has persisted even though women often work
longer hours and participate in more professional activities than their malecolleagues. A survey of life sciences faculty in 50 universities found that women were
paid on average $13,226 less than men, despite reporting greater workloads.42 The
average salary for a female assistant professor in 2009-10 was $62,070, comparedwith $66,718 for her male colleague. The disparity is even more dramatic at the rankof full professor, where women earn on average $99,780 to men’s $113,556.43 These
gaps in compensation persist even when researchers control for different types of
institutions and different academic disciplines.44
Since the 1960s, court battles have been waged to attempt to address and correct
gendered wage discrimination, but they have often foundered on technicalities
arising from the statutes of limitations and the difficulty of ascertaining when,exactly, the discriminatory compensation began. Legal remedies for wage
discrimination have recently been enhanced by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
of 2009, which allowed for an extended statute of limitations in which wage
discrimination lawsuits can be filed (they now can be filed for 180 days after eachdiscriminatory paycheck). That said, gender discrimination (regarding wages or inother areas) remains difficult to prove in court. In Kaplan v. SUNY Geneseo,45 eventhough gender discrimination was cited as the reason for the unfair dismissal of afaculty member, the court found that there was no pattern of discrimination, thus
denying the plaintiff any awarded damages and letting the institution off the hook interms of having to redress institutionalized inequalities.
Female academics often report being caught in a gendered double standard where
aggressive negotiations over their hiring packages can cause them to be perceived
negatively. The American Association of University Women has documented several

14 | AFT higher education

empirical studies that demonstrate the inverse relationship between “likability” and“competence” for women when they take on traditionally “male” working roles.46 In
negotiations, this inverse relationship puts women at a disadvantage to their malepeers when negotiating their initial compensation packages and helps create theinitial gender gap in compensation that can persist throughout a woman’s entire
academic career.
Lack of Family-Friendly Policies
Institutions that do not incorporate (or properly implement) family-friendly policies
may find it hard to attract female job applicants. Due to both the rigors of achieving
tenure and the disproportionate burden of child rearing that falls to women, young
women entering the academic profession are often faced with a decision to avoid
finding a tenure-track position and start a family or to delay starting a family until
they have tenure. Hiring committees may also question the commitment of female
academics with children (even though this is illegal). Additionally, women withchildren are almost twice as likely as men to take part-time, nontenured positions
so they can attend to the needs of their families. In the STEM fields, women withchildren were 35 percent less likely to pursue tenure-track positions than men withchildren.47
Lack of Standard Processes
Many colleges and universities have developed policies and procedures to makesure that the hiring process is equitable, but the simple fact is that these policies
are implemented by hiring academic departments in piecemeal, haphazard andinconsistent ways, if at all. Whether the cause is the fact that hiring committees
themselves lack diversity or an inadequate understanding of the institution’s mission
to recruit and hire women, the result is often an inequitable, disorganized hiring
process that disproportionately puts women at a disadvantage.
Academic Staffing Opportunities
Over the last 30 years, state funding for higher education has been drasticallyreduced. As a consequence, an inversion of the academic labor force has occurred:
Almost 75 percent of today’s instructional workforce works on a contingent basis.
This move to a contingent model of employment for higher education professionals
has coincided with the increased numbers of women entering the profession andhas affected them disproportionately.
From 1997 to 2007, the number of women in the instructional workforce grew by 48
percent, and in 2007, women comprised 46 percent of all instructional positions. The
positions being filled, however, have been primarily nontenure positions. In fact,
the share of women in tenure-track positions actually declined 0.4 percent between
1997 and 2007, while the share of women in part-time faculty positions rose by 2.7
percent. Full-time tenure-track faculty who are women comprised 10.3 percent of
the instructional labor force in 2007, whereas their male tenure-track colleagues
made up 17 percent. Women faculty who were not on the tenure track (excluding
graduate employees) made up 26 percent of the total instructional labor force, as
opposed to 25.7 percent for their male peers.48 Women of color also are far less likely
to be on the tenure track than are their male counterparts.

faculty diversity | 15

The Undervaluing of Research on Women and Minorities
Female academics who focus their research on gender and/or ethnic studies may
also find themselves at an additional disadvantage in the hiring process. Female
applicants with these research foci frequently feel that this particular research isundervalued by traditional academic departments. It has been, as Sandra Harding
put it: “ignored, trivialized, or appropriated without the credit which would havebeen given to a man’s work.”49 Many women find themselves directed toward finding
employment in smaller area studies departments (often as a joint appointment withanother, more traditional department, often doubling the service commitments ofthese hires).50 These departments increasingly are finding themselves under attack
as budget cuts force universities to cut back on course and program offerings.
Barriers to Retention
Even after attaining a faculty position, women face numerous challenges to successin their chose fields. Reasons for this struggle include:■■■

Hostile or unwelcoming workplace climates;
Inadequate family-friendly policies; andDifficulties in navigating the tenure track.

Workplace Climate
Women frequently cite feelings of isolation and marginalization in their academic
departments. A report issued by the University of California-Los Angeles equity
committee found that female faculty (compared with their male counterparts) at UCLA:
■
■
■
■
■
■

were less satisfied with their jobs;
rated their work environment as less collegial;
viewed the evaluation process as less fair;
felt less informed about academic advancement and resource negotiation;
rated the distribution of resources as less than equitable; andfelt that power was concentrated in the hands of white male faculty.51

These findings, consistent with anecdotal reports from other women faculty
members at other colleges, indicate a campus climate that leads to female academics
feeling disconnected from their workplace. A lower sense of connection andsatisfaction on the job is, of course, linked with an inability to retain disaffected
workers.
Women in STEM fields also remain subject to implicit biases about their ability toperform well in these disciplines. This leads to a climate where women who choose
to enter these fields must be significantly more productive than their male colleagues
if they are to advance in their careers.52
It also seems that success for a woman in an academic field comes with a cost. Just
as women feel constrained in their ability to negotiate aggressively for fear of being
viewed negatively, research indicates that women who are deemed “successful” intheir jobs are, on average, seen as significantly less likable than their male colleagues
and compared with female colleagues whose performance is more ambiguous.53

16 | AFT higher education

Lack of Family-Friendly Policies
The impact of the lack of family-friendly policies has already been seen in the hiring
process, but it also affects the decisions of female faculty member to stay in theirpositions, and it affects their prospects for career advancement. Studies have foundthat, despite conducting research and teaching that is equal to or exceeds the workof men, women—especially married women with children—are more likely to bedenied tenure than are their male counterparts. Women (and men, for that matter)are not able to stop the “tenure clock” to deal with the responsibilities that come withhaving a child:
Certainly the timing of tenure is terrible for women. Today, the average age at
which women can expect to receive a Ph.D. is 34. That puts the five to seven yearsof racing the tenure clock squarely at the end of the normal reproductive cycle.
Those are the “make or break” years for female academics, in terms of both careerand childbearing, not to mention the demands of raising young children. Difficult
choices must be made.54
Inadequate family leave policies also can have an impact on female contingent
faculty members. They may find that their prospects for reappointment arediminished if they take a leave to attend to raising children. Women in these
positions are often hired with no recourse to sick or personal days that they could
use to care for sick family members. Missing work for this reason, then, could
diminish their chances for receiving future courses at a given workplace.
Navigating the Tenure Track
Many of the retention problems facing female faculty members that have been
discussed center around issues having to do with tenure. In many ways, the lack oftransparency and consistency in what makes a tenure application competitive—thekinds of service, teaching and research records for which tenure committees arelooking—and female faculty members’ marginalization in social networks where
informal conversations about how to navigate the tenure process put women ata disadvantage. As has been previously noted, women are often held to a higher
standard in their work, and women whose work is equal to or exceeds that of theirmale counterparts sometimes find themselves being denied tenure for reasons
having nothing to do with their portfolios—most often these tenure denials have
happened to women with family responsibilities.
In the early 1990s, University of Michigan political science professor Jill Crystal was
denied tenure after demanding her rights under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination
Act. Crystal had found that the university did not have any maternity policies, instead
informing female faculty that they should plan on giving birth during researchleave or summer breaks—both are time periods that would affect their ability to
do research, and hence have an impact on their tenure cases. Crystal pursued
the matter and was allowed a term off for maternity leave, but was subsequently
denied tenure, which, in 1996, a court found was in retaliation for asserting her
rights.55 According to a study conducted by the National Science Foundation, female
scientists with children are 27 percent less likely to achieve tenure than their malecolleagues with children.56 Moreover, even when family-friendly policies exist,
faculty members may not know about or take advantage of them. A study of faculty

faculty diversity | 17

members at the University of California-Berkeley found that only 25 percent offaculty knew of all four key policies designed to ease the burdens on faculty memberswith families, and 51 percent of female faculty members stated that they did not takeadvantage of the policies they did know about for fear that if they did so, it would
adversely affect their tenure review.57
Women faculty members with children find themselves in a particular bind. As was
discussed above, the tenure clock for women (and men) keeps on ticking when afaculty member is home with a young child, and this not only puts additional stresson young faculty members with children, but also puts the progression of theircareers in jeopardy.

18 | AFT higher education

Best Practices and Recommendations

Promoting Gender Diversity among the Faculty
Faculty members and their unions are fortunate to have had many pioneering
activists take on gender discrimination over the last several decades, which has
left a legacy upon which we can draw. Building on this legacy, the AFT strongly
recommends that each AFT Higher Education local make faculty diversity—which
includes not only gender, but racial and ethnic diversity—an important part of theunion agenda on campus. This can be done by:■
Taking an in-depth look at what is happening on the diversity front on yourcampus;■
Initiating a discussion with your leaders and membership about possibleplans of action, including ways to incorporate diversity activities into thecollective bargaining contract; and■Designating a group of people to coordinate the union’s efforts.
This can be accomplished with the following steps:
Inventory. As a first step, we urge local leaders to consider conducting an
inventory of your institutions to assess the condition of diversity in the student
body, the faculty and the campus administration—campuswide and in individual
departments. Take a look at the obstacles to diversity enumerated in this report,
and see how your institution stacks up in terms of eliminating the obstacles andcreating a positive environment for female faculty.
Leader/Membership Involvement. We encourage you to take your inventoryof campus diversity conditions, take the facts to your leaders and members, andinitiate probing discussions about the issues raised in the report. Expand that
dialogue as widely as you can.
Diversity Committee. To transform analysis and discussion into a concrete
program of action, we recommend that each local affiliate establish a standing
committee to oversee and coordinate diversity-related activities.
In addition to coordinating the union’s work, these committees can serve as themain point of contact in attempts to build coalitions with other stakeholders—preK12 unions, university systems and local community groups, to name a few. Wheneverpossible, the work of the union diversity committee should be coordinated with any
administration diversity committee or activities that may already exist on campus.

faculty diversity | 19

The union can, in fact, prompt the administration to create diversity structures at theinstitution. Joint labor-management diversity committees are another avenue thatcan be considered as a means toward creating effective and lasting ways to increase
diversity for both the student population and faculty ranks.

Activities To Promote Gender Diversity on Your Campus
What follows are several recommendations and activities about how to remove
barriers in hiring, retention and the educational pathways that impede women on
their way to academic careers.
Establishing More Diverse Hiring Practices
Because the responsibility for faculty hiring is so dispersed at academic institutions,taking place primarily at the departmental level, here is a series of suggestions thatyour local can consider to promote a coordinated institutionwide focus on theoutreach to and recruitment of female faculty.
Activity No. 1:
Encourage the institution to develop and implement a clear diversity mission andstrategic plan.
An institutional commitment to gender diversity has been shown to create a morewelcoming campus climate by sending the message to faculty, staff and students
that employing a diverse faculty is necessary to the institution’s success. Local
unions can encourage the creation of such missions and plans, and can aid in theirimplementation. The union could, for example:
■

■

■

■

Organize forums/workshops at which leading researchers on women in theworkplace present findings to administrators about the benefits of a diverse
faculty and staff.
Facilitate discussion groups that build coalitions of students, faculty andstaff around the issue of faculty gender diversity and its effect on student
success.
Promote and reward the success of departments that have made substantial
efforts toward increasing the diversity of their faculty as well as theirstudents.
Encourage the administration to apply to the National Science Foundation
for an ADVANCE Grant, which are grants designed to help higher education
institutions achieve increased levels of gender diversity in the STEM fields.

Activity No. 2:
Educate hiring committees about the institutional gender diversity mission and plan,and establish protocols, through collective bargaining whenever possible, for the
search and hiring process.
■Develop institutionwide guidelines for candidate evaluation, with the goalof creating equitable faculty searches.
■
Mandate gender bias training for all search committee participants that goesbeyond the standard equal employment opportunity training. Groups likethe American Association of University Women58 and the National Women’s

20 | AFT higher education

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Studies Association59 have guides for faculty and administrators to deal withthe specific challenges to gender equity we have discussed here. In addition,
campuses like the University of California60 have come up with their own“tool kits” to help make campuses more hospitable to female faculty.
Create monitoring committees to ensure that faculty search committees
continue to conform to standards that promote gender equality in the
search process.
Encourage the formation of more diverse hiring committees that include
women, and take steps to mitigate workload issues around teaching andresearch for those who participate on faculty search committees.
Work to educate search committee members about the academic valueof research in the fields of gender and ethnic studies to reduce themarginalization of academics who are in those fields.
Consider the policy of appointments for dual-career couples while also
considering ways to maintain equitable hiring practices for all.
Educate hiring committees about existing biases toward job candidates
who have families; and ensure that during the hiring process, candidates
are made aware of family-friendly policies and other available supports.
Promote the use of “cluster hiring” to bring in women faculty from diverse
populations at one time as a way to increase the number of women on
campus while also working to eliminate a climate of isolation. For example,
Rutgers University launched an innovative cluster hiring initiative toimprove diversity on its faculty. Since 2008, deans and provosts havesubmitted five-year proposals for faculty diversity cluster hires—groupsof three, four or five faculty who would come to Rutgers as a “cluster.”
These faculty could all be in one department or, more likely, be crossdepartmental hires or in different schools. The proposal must demonstrate
how the new hires would strategically increase the diversification of theuniversity’s research and teaching.
Promote recruitment through publications and listservs that target women,
and consider other ways to coordinate recruitment among campus
departments. For example, the University of California-San Francisco
developed a tool that creates an “academic database,” which tracks faculty
searches and compares the university’s performance with national data. In
May 2009, UCSF leaders took new steps to increase diversity based on thedata developed.

Activity No. 3:
Establish collective bargaining mechanisms that will ensure equitable compensation
for new faculty hires.
■
Encourage the adoption of transparent and equitable salary scales.
■
Many institutions give academic departments a considerable amountof latitude in offering job candidates or current faculty members
compensation packages that go beyond what are in the wage scales.
These packages often are justified as responses to competing offers or to
reward especially productive faculty members. Whatever the reason, theprocess by which these offers are made should be made transparent andunderstandable to all faculty.

faculty diversity | 21■Consider providing confidential negotiation counseling for thoseconsidering job offers. Candidates would receive advice on what pointsof their appointment contract to negotiate and how to undertake thesenegotiations.

Activity No. 4:
Take advantage of the national AFT Faculty and College Excellence (FACE) campaign
to promote better faculty jobs on campus through political advocacy and collective
bargaining.
Specifically, the FACE campaign is designed to increase the number of full-timetenure-track positions and improve the working conditions for contingent faculty,
both of which would benefit female faculty members. For more information, locals
should visit the FACE website, www.aftface.org.
Retaining Female Faculty and Navigating the University Culture
Local unions can contribute to the retention of female faculty through labormanagement activities, including collective bargaining, and the union’s own
governance.
Activity No. 1:
Promote the inclusion of women in the union.
Such efforts may include:
■

■

■

■

■

Involving female faculty in union events, featuring women speakers at union
events, and fostering discussion of diversity and gender-related issues.
Taking steps to ensure that union executive boards, councils, committees
and bargaining teams actively recruit women to serve.
Ensuring that faculty members with children are able to attend andparticipate in union activities and leadership. This may include scheduling
union events at times when these parents can attend, or having the local
provide child care at union functions.
Creating a diversity committee within the local to address the difficulties
that underrepresented groups, including women, face at the institution andwithin the union.
Promoting a gender diversity agenda with the other labor organizations towhich the local belongs, such as the Central Labor Council and the state
AFL-CIO.

Activity No. 2:
Engage the administration on issues and policies that will help female faculty
members succeed. Again, some aspects of this may be supported through collective
bargaining and the contract. For example, the union can:■■22 | AFT higher education

Create tool kits for department heads (often a temporary and untrained
position) to help them advocate for and maintain a climate conducive togender diversity in academic departments.
Offer workshops for all new faculty members to introduce them to the union

■

■

■

and show them how the union can support their professional needs.
Develop formal mentoring programs for new faculty members, such as
one-on-one mentoring to counter the culture of isolation that so many new
women faculty members face.
Discuss with administrators and fellow faculty members the problem ofexcessive service workloads for female faculty.
The expectations imposed on tenure-track faculty should be balanced andlimited to what is feasible, in order for them to pursue their research as well
as service and committee work. Responsibilities should be varied enoughfor them to succeed when they are up for tenure review, while also ensuring
good and fair working conditions.
Work with administrators to implement family-friendly policies andservices in the workplace. These policies should be made available tofaculty members regardless of gender, and all faculty members should be
encouraged to utilize them if necessary. These policies may include:—Adding time to the tenure clock for junior faculty members with young
children.
—Creating on-campus programs and facilities that support faculty memberswith young children. For example, does your campus have on-site day
care? Are there comfortable facilities available for mothers who arebreastfeeding and/or must pump breast milk?
—Encouraging faculty members to use the family leave policies available tothem and working to see that they are not discriminated against for using
them.

When these policies are available to and used by all faculty members, it becomes lesslikely that their utilization can serve as a basis for discrimination in other areas.
■■

Educate administrators and fellow faculty members on gender bias in theworkplace.
Clarify and make transparent the tenure review process, and support female
faculty members in navigating this process.

When junior faculty members are asked to cite reasons for not staying at their
institutions, they frequently focus on the idiosyncrasy and mystery surrounding thetenure and promotion process. The union can help. For example, the United Facultyof Miami Dade College provides its members with a series of faculty advancement
workshops that include help with writing the self-assessment, applying forcontinuing contracts, navigating the promotion process and applying for endowed
chair positions. Workshops are led by veteran faculty who offer comprehensive stepby-step guidance for new faculty.

faculty diversity | 23

Activity No. 3:
Consider creating a travel fund for faculty with small children to bring a child along toa conference. This fund can be created within the local, or it is something that can be
put on the table and bargained over with the institution’s administration.
Diversifying Educational Pathways
As reported in the previous section, achieving faculty diversity, in the end, will
require educators to move more students from underrepresented groups, including
women, onto educational pathways that lead to academic careers. Women haveachieved remarkable gains in the last 30 years, but as we have seen, they are still
underrepresented in the growing STEM fields and among the ranks of full-timetenure-track faculty. Moreover, women of color, who face challenges that arecompounded, are still woefully underrepresented across the board.
Improving conditions will require significantly more time, attention and interchange
among faculty and teachers at all levels. Here are some ideas organized in terms of(1) the preK-12/college connection, (2) the community college/four-year college
connection, (3) the undergraduate/graduate school connection, and (4) succeedingin graduate school. We also pay special attention to the STEM fields and opening
educational pathways to women of color.
Strengthening the preK-12/College Connection
Lack of access to a rigorous high school curriculum, along with a lack of knowledge
about the admissions process, financial aid and postsecondary education allcontribute to low persistence rates.
To address these concerns, we urge local higher education unions to bring someof their members together with colleagues in the colleges’ “feeder” preK-12 unions
to determine what can be done cooperatively to help elementary, middle andhigh school students prepare for college and envision higher education careers forthemselves—financially, academically and as a way of life.
Whenever possible, both preK-12 and higher education locals might try to incorporate
ideas coming out of these discussions into their own collective bargaining agreements
so constructive activities can get under way without imposing a completely
extracurricular and unrewarded burden on the faculty. Activities suggested during
these high school-college faculty discussions might include:■■

24 | AFT higher education

Forming a corps of college faculty who can work in local high schools to
encourage women to pursue college and to become ready for college. In
particular, sending in female professors from STEM fields to encourage
young women to pursue science and technology careers and mentor them
about how to prepare for such a career could have a huge positive impact ongetting more women onto the educational pathways for these disciplines.
Pairing high school counselors with college counselors to brainstorm ways
to help young women successfully make the transition to college. These
counseling teams can also help students navigate the admissions and financial
aid process, something that can be of great importance both to young women

■

■

■

of color and to women who will be first-generation college students.
Providing opportunities for high school girls to visit college campuses.
Improving female students’ K-12 academic achievement and preparation
increases their chances of success. Faculty might consider inviting highschool girls to participate in summer research projects and encouraging
them to sit in on their classes and in their laboratories.
Conducting periodic meetings between college and high school facultyin the same disciplines to discuss the high school curriculum and the
expectations colleges have of entering freshmen.
Among the areas of discussion can be developmental education, as well asaligning high school and college expectations and curricula more closely.
High schools located on college campuses, often known as laboratory highschools, could offer a good arena for developing ideas.
Providing high school girls with union-sponsored financial assistance forcollege. Several local unions offer scholarships to members’ dependents forhigher education. Two programs are sponsored by the national AFT:
Robert G. Porter Scholars Program
Four-year, $8,000 postsecondary scholarships are available to AFT members’
dependents. Applicants must be graduating high school seniors whoseparent or guardian has been an AFT member for at least one year.

■

Union Plus Scholarship Program
Sponsored by the Union Plus Education Foundation, the program is open
to members of unions participating in any of the Union Plus programs, andtheir spouses and dependent children. The amount of the award ranges
from $500 to $4,000.
Connecting with community leaders to create programs to educate
parents of young women about the value of and pathways to an affordable
college degree. The partnerships can also be used to educate parents andcommunity members about how to combat gender stereotypes and how to
encourage young women to enter fields traditionally dominated by men,such as the STEM fields.

Strengthening the Two-Year/Four-Year College Connection
Higher education unions should consider bringing together faculty at local twoand four-year institutions to help resolve problems of student persistence andarticulation between community college and baccalaureate institutions. Articulation
standards may or may not be within the control of faculty, but faculty can seek ways
to facilitate the transition by aligning program criteria between two- and four-year
institutions and facilitating the transfer of credits.
Strengthening the Undergraduate/Graduate School Connection
Faculty members can help create incentives for their undergraduate students topursue graduate programs. Considerable amounts of time, money and preparation
are necessary for a successful graduate career, as well as some level of understandingthat jobs will be available upon completion of the degree. Local higher education

faculty diversity | 25

unions can push for contracts supporting mentoring efforts and leadership training
to encourage undergraduates to consider a graduate academic career as well as
graduate-level professional programs such as dental, medical or law schools. Related
activities could include:■■■

Conducting education fairs that are similar to job fairs. The education fairs
should be aimed at informing undergraduate students about pursuing acareer in academe and showcasing what kind of positions are available.
Faculty members may want to consider having specific education fairs
targeted toward women who are interested in pursuing a career in the STEM
disciplines.
Connecting female students with government or private financial incentive
programs, including institutional or union programs, that are available topursue graduate degrees. Faculty should attempt to familiarize themselveswith these opportunities and encourage their undergraduate students topursue them.
Strengthen mentorship efforts aimed at female undergraduates—­especiallythose in the STEM fields. These mentoring efforts should be integrated intocollective bargaining agreements whenever possible. Mentoring ideas willundoubtedly be generated by union diversity committees. Other efforts may
involve taking advantage of existing federal and private programs.

Enhancing the Graduate School Experience
Higher education unions can help improve the inclusiveness of graduate
programs by providing female students with the support and resources they needto successfully complete their studies. Faculty and staff mentoring and crossdepartmental communication and collaboration will enhance graduate students’success and persistence.
A common obstacle for faculty involvement in mentoring and retention strategies isa lack of time and resources to support such initiatives. Locals may want to consider
pushing for contract language that supports initiatives to:
■

■

■

■

■

■

■

26 | AFT higher education

Develop and promote interactive faculty-student groups with the theme ofcross-departmental collaboration and graduate student success. Graduate
research and teaching assistants should be included in these groups.
Support faculty mentoring activities at the departmental and crossdepartmental levels.
Identify community partners to support graduate student persistence andsuccess.
Incorporate family-friendly policies for graduate students with children inorder to help them balance family and scholastic obligations.
Encourage student participation in public and private diversity-related
programs.
Promote other funding opportunities for diversity efforts through thecreation of a union-sponsored listserv or e-mail network devoted todiversity.
Sponsor, in the STEM fields, events that help integrate female graduate
students into their departments.

■Encourage the formation of groups for women scholars, either on a
disciplinary or cross-disciplinary basis.

Graduate employee unions and their faculty allies should work to incorporate manyof the same protections available to faculty members into their own contracts. Today,a growing number of graduate student employees are represented by labor unions,giving them a unique opportunity to bargain equitable labor practices for women
into collective bargaining agreements.

faculty diversity | 27

Endnotes

1

Cohen, D.S. (2005). “Title IX: Beyond Equal Protection.” Harvard Journal of Law

2

Ibid., p. 223.

3

Examples of these studies include Gottfredson, N.C. et al. (2008). “Does Diversity

and Gender, v. 28, pp. 222-226.

at Undergraduate Institutions Influence Student Outcomes?” Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, v 1(2), pp. 80-94, available at http://www.apa.
org/pubs/journals/features/dhe-1-2-80.pdf and Milem, J.F. (2001). “Increasing
Diversity Benefits: How Campus Climate and Teaching Methods Affect Student
Outcomes.” Pp. 233-249 in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact ofAffirmative Action, Harvard Educational Publishing, available at http://www.eric.
ed.gov/PDFS/ED456202.pdf. Further studies on the links between diversity andstudent outcomes can be found at http://www.diversityweb.org/research_and_
trends/research_evaluation_impact/student_learning_outcomes/index.cfm
4“Women, minorities continue to grow.” November 2010. Women in Higher
Education 19(11), pp.3-4.

5“2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty
and Instructional Staff in 2003,” p. 10. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005172.pdf

6Ibid., p. 11.

7

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_250.asp

8Curtis, J. (2010). No Refuge: 2009-10 Report on the Economic Status of theProfession, p. 21. Available at http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/AFB342022D42-48B6-9C3B-52EC3D86F605/0/zreport.pdf

9

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_250.asp

10 “2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty
and Instructional Staff in 2003,” p. 10. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005172.pdf
11 American Association of University Women. (2010). Why So Few? p. 18. Available
at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
12 We use the term “women of color” to mean women who are African-American,
Asian, Native American or Hispanic. Our use of this particular phrase, however,should not imply that the experiences of women in these racial/ethnic
categorizations are the same.
13 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_246.asp
14 “Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate educationand how they have changed over time,” p. V. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/

28 | AFT higher education

pubs2005/2005169.pdf
15 Ibid., p. 19.
16 American Association of University Women. (2010). Why So Few? p. 9. Available
at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
17 Ibid., p. 12.
18 Ibid., pp. 29-36
19 Ibid., p. 38
20 Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’smath performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
21 Ibid., pp. xiv-xv.
22 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legaled/statistics/charts/
stats_6.authcheckdam.pdf
23 http://www.aals.org/statistics/0506/0506_T2A_tit4_8yr.html
24 https://www.aamc.org/download/53474/data/table1_2009.pdf
25 https://www.aamc.org/download/53478/data/table3_2009.pdf
26 Ibid.
27 https://www.aamc.org/download/53472/data/figure11_2009.pdf
28 AACSB. (2010). Business School Data Trends and 2010 List of Accredited Schools,
p. 31. Available at http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/businesseducation/2010Data-Trends.pdf
29 Ibid., p. 37.
30 American Library Association. (2007). Diversity Counts, p. 22. Available at http://
www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/diversity/diversitycounts/diversitycounts_rev0.pdf
31 Ibid., p. 18.
32 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/dropout07/figures/figure_03.asp
33 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/dropout07/figures/figure_05.asp
34 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/dropout07/figures/figure_02.asp
35 “Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate educationand how they have changed over time,” p. 10. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005169.pdf
36 Ibid., p. 11.
37 “Low income” refers to students who come from families whose income does notexceed 125 percent of the federal poverty level.
38 “Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate educationand how they have changed over time,” p. 14. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005169.pdf
39 American Association of University Women. (2006). Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 17. Available at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/
upload/DTLFinal.pdf
40 Ibid., p. 21.
41 Ibid., p. 31.
42 DesRoches, C. & Zinner, D. (April 2010). “Activities, productivity, andcompensation of men and women in the life sciences.” Academic Medicine,85(4), pp. 631-639. Available at http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/
Fulltext/2010/04000/Activities,_Productivity,_and_Compensation_of _Men.23.apx
43 Curtis, J. (2010). No Refuge: 2009-10 Report on the Economic Status of theProfession, p. 21. Available at http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/AFB342022D42-48B6-9C3B-52EC3D86F605/0/zreport.pdf

faculty diversity | 29

44 Fairweather, J.S. (1995). “Myths and Realities of Academic Labor Markets.”
Economics of Education Review, 14(2), pp. 179-192. Available at http://nersp.
nerdc.ufl.edu/~lombardi/edudocs/fairweather.pdf.
45 http://reocities.com/Athens/crete/9234/
46 American Association of University Women. (2010). Why So Few?, p. 83-86.
Available at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
47 Ibid.,, p. 24.
48 AFT Higher Education. (2009). American Academic: The State of the Higher
Education Workforce 1997-2007, p. 20.
49 Harding, S. (1987). “Introduction: Is There a Feminist Method?” In Feminism andMethodology: Social Science Issues, (Sandra Harding, editor), p. 4. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
50 National Women’s Studies Association. (2006) “Women’s Studies Program
Administrators Handbook.”, available at http://www.nwsa.org/research/
downloads/paddocs/admin/WSHandbook2006.pdf
51 UCLA Gender Equity Committees: Climate Committee Executive Report (April
2003). Academic Climate. Available at http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/
gendeq/comittees/docs/ExecutiveSummary-Climate.pdf.
52 American Association of University Women. (2010). Why So Few?, p. 24. Available
at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
53 Ibid., p. 84
54 Mason, M.A. (April 22, 2009). “Is Tenure a Trap for Women?” The Chronicle ofHigher Educatin. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Tenure-a-Trap-forWomen-/44814/
55 AAUW (2004). Tenure Denied: Cases of Sex Discrimination in Academia, pp. 2627. Available at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/TenureDenied.pdf
56 Mason, M.A. (March 17, 2010). “Women, Tenure, and the Law.” The Chornicleof Higher Education. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/women-tenurethelaw/64646/
57 Creating a Family Friendly Department: Chairs and Deans Toolkit. Available at
http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ChairsandDeansToolkitFinal7-07.pdf
58 AAUW Educational Foundation Sexual Harsassment Task Force. (2004).
Harassment-Free Hallways: How to Stop Sexual Harassment in School. Available
at http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/completeguide.pdf
59 National Women’s Studies Association. (2006). “Women’s Studies Program
Administrators Handbook.” available at http://www.nwsa.org/research/
downloads/paddocs/admin/WSHandbook2006.pdf
60 Creating a Family Friendly Department: Chairs and Deans Toolkit. Available at
http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/ChairsandDeansToolkitFinal7-07.pdf

30 | AFT higher education

faculty diversity | 31

32 | AFT higher education

AFT Higher Education Staff
LAWRENCE N. GOLD, AFT Higher Education, Director
CRAIG P. SMITH, AFT Higher Education, Deputy Director
LINDSAY A. HENCH, AFT Higher Education, Senior Associate
CHRISTOPHER GOFF, AFT Higher Education, Associate
LISA HANDON, AFT Higher Education, Administrative Assistant
KEVIN WASHINGTON, AFT Higher Education, Administrative AssistantItem no. 36-11004