Report on Female Staff Discrimination at Columbia University, February 1971, page 3

Download: Transcript

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 View All

Show transcript

           

 - .3.‘ . a._ .93.
.-*, ~4~ ,. , __ _,, _

.. fa.‘ Q‘-‘€15 I‘ "
:,,i .‘ -'

«h..{o. -

.rLN»'IRAI, Q Hi? ii‘-‘at."‘-'i

  
  
  
    

In January, 10.70, (Tolumbiu Wntm.-n's I.:'h0r~atinn rnlvased a
report from the Committee on Discrimination Against women Faculty‘
(Exhibit #1) wwich was based nn data collected from the {G68-69
catalogues of Columbia University. The most crucial findings were
that the number of tenured female faculty at Columbia is only 2.1%.
Moreover, as the income and.prestige associated with a given job
category decreases, the relative number of women in that category
increases concomitantly.

The Committee on Discrimination Against women Faculty was
fortunate in that much of the data it required to produce its report
was available and open to all interested individuals. The Committee
on Staff Discrimination, however, had need of data that was consistently
refused it by the central administration of Columbia-during the course
of it! investigation. we were denied impersonal statistical data on H
job categories, reference to either inc past or upcoming Univeraity
Personnel Policy manuals (Exhibits 25, 2b) or even a complete mailing
list of the non-teaching women at Columbia.‘ As a result, we were
obliged to rely on two basic piecvs of data: (1) the December 31, l969n
report submitted by Columbia Univerwity to the Office of Contract Com-l {

pliance of Hfiwzand (2) results from questionnaires which were sent to

Reproduced from Barnard Alumac Magazine, Qpring, 1970 issue

The affirmative action compliancw program submitted by the University"
December 31, 1969, is an example of the continuing deliberate avoidance
of the myriad problems regarding sexual discrimination at Columbia 1
The program attempts to conform to thv ruquirements of section 60-l.Q0
of the Rules and Regulations under Executive Order 11246 regarding
minority group employment practicws. Thv fact that in L968 the order J
was amended to include discrimination on the basis of sex (Amendment
11375 to Executive Order ll2U6) is ignored in the program. No attempt.

..... ..._‘_......._iV— ye--m