Re: MentorNet (one woman's response)

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 14:08 -0500 10/11/02, James Mackey wrote:
> So, what shall we do?  A. Shall we require that every new physics hire
> at University X shall be a woman until the % of women in physics becomes
> equal to ~50%?  (regardless of whether or not an equally or better
> qualified male applies or not).

Whenever I hear your question asked, I usually suspect the question
implied is "Don't you think that members of group X are automatically
better qualified than members of group Y?" Unfortunately, Jesse Helms
used this very technique to win a close election against a black
opponent who had a record of successfully administering affirmative
action programs. It was a scurrilous tactic then, and teh question
remains irrelevant today. It is not always certain that people hired,
or promoted, or given tenure under affirmative action-inspired
"quotas" are less qualified than an applicant who does not come under
the guidelines. If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, we
will recognize that ability or qualifications are not always the most
important factors in a hiring decision, even when no affirmative
action rules are in effect. People make hiring decisions based on all
sorts of irrelevant qualities of the applicants. "Looking like me" is
certainly one; that is, being of the same gender, race and college
are often overriding considerations, even if never voiced. The child
of a well-known parent often has an advantage (sometimes its a
disadvantage, depending on the type of fame the parent has), politics
plays a part, as does appearance. All of these things are irrelevant
to the person's ability as a researcher, although some may play roles
in other areas.

Unfortunately, your method A is the most commonly used one, for two
reasons: first, the people charged with carrying out any affirmative
action program are not willing to put any effort into it and that
method is easy to run and easy to administer; and second, they oppose
the very idea of affirmative action and are determined to run it in a
way that guarantees its failure. Either reason guarantees failure.
Sometimes its a combination of both, but for whatever reason, using
method A is certainly not the best way to do it. Unfortunately, the
same people usually end up in charge of these programs who are also
unwilling to go to the effort of making sure that employees have
access to "due process" procedures before they are terminated.

I don't think anyone will disagree that being fair to people and
caring for their welfare takes more time and effort than being
arbitrary and capricious, and most scientists begrudge whatever time
they have to devote to these activities that take them away from
their research. And that's too bad, but I believe that being fair and
caring for people is more important than spending all one's time on
research and ignoring the needs of those around us. It doesn't mean
that one has to give up research to do the administrative junk, only
that perhaps instead of publishing four papers a year, one can only
publish three.

> B. Or shall we try to educate those
> chauvinistic male administrators to the fact that women can be equally
> effective as men at any position they are equally prepared for, and
> perhaps try to encourage and support women in their efforts to obtain
> advanced degrees in physics? I believe that A. is closer to the actual
> way affirmative action has manifested itself in our society.  What
> solution do you suggest?
B is a better alternative, but it is not nearly enough. The education
process has to be continually reinforced, and the grievance
mechanisms have to be available and easily accessed. Since the
evidence that can help a grievant make his or her case is often
locked up inside administrative files, putting the burden of proof on
the grievant is often an impossible barrier. Some means of leveling
that playing field has to be found. Some of the rules have to be
changed. Nepotism rules have to be eliminated for seriously modified
(I'm OK with keeping relatives outside of one anothers' chain of
command, especially where one spouse has employment authority over
the other). Job-sharing arrangements need to be encouraged, so that a
wife who follows her husband (or vice-versa) to a new job doesn't end
up in the unemployment line. There need means to be whereby having a
family doesn't mean giving up your career. If men can have families
and careers, then those women who desire it should be able to as
well. There need to be support systems set up for students, grad and
undergrad, as well as post-docs. Women should not be pushed into
certain areas of research. Too often, women get pushed towards
physics education research and away from "real" physics. This is an
important area and it needs to have good people in it, but those who
enter it should do so because they want to, and not because it is
where they were pushed. These are a few of what needs to be done.
They all qualify as "affirmative action," and none involves quotas.
There are physics departments where the environment has been made
"female-friendly." Two that I know of are Oregon State and Dickinson
College. There are others, but if one wants to see how to do it
right, places like those need to be investigated and copied.

This is not something that will happen just because we think it is
"nice." And at least some of it is really not done because the people
in charge are closet mysogonists. Often it is just that these are
problems that they have never thought of. Since they never faced them
themselves, they don't even realize they exist. But sometimes the
belief that they don't exist is deeply entrenched and a lot of
convincing is needed.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.