Proposal, New England Regional Resource Center for Women in Higher Education, 1971
[handwritten] Mary - where did this come from? Do we know? New England Regional Resource Center for Women in Higher Education Background For two years, universities have been studying the status of women in higher education and analyzing some of the structural and psychological barriers which prevent women students and faculty members from participating fully in the academic community . Documentation describing the exclusion of women from graduate school, research, faculty and administrative posts, and professional association is extensive . These reports are as much a response to the demands of women as to the requirements of the federal government. Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, calls upon universities to create and enforce affirmative action programs for women as well as for minority persons. Universities are now beginning to search for women faculty members and to review and alter recruitment and employment policies. But they often lack commitment to improve the position of women, as well as the information with which to begin change. Women administrators from six private coeducational and formerly all- male institutions in New England, all of whom are engaged in one way or another with increasing opportunities for women on their respective campuses, met to discuss common concerns and needs at Sturbridge, Massachusetts on September 22, 1971. Present were: Dr. Jacquelyn Mattfeld, and her assistant, Nancy Siemple Vice President and Associate Provost Brown University Providence, Rhode Island  See Pat Graham, "Women in Academe" available from Princeton University. Reprinted in Science. Also Pamela Roby "Structural and Internal Barriers to Women in Higher Education"  Among these (available from their respective campuses) are: Reports from Berkeley, University of Chicago, SUNY—Buffalo, Yale, Harvard, UMASS, Boston
-2- Dr. Adele Simmons, Dean Jackson College Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts Dr. Elga Wasserman Assistant to the President Yale University New Haven, Connecticut Dr. Dorothy Zinberg Consultant to President Bok Harvard University 11 Scott Street Cambridge, Massachusetts Dr. Miriam Slater House Master Hampshire College Amherst, Massachusetts Sheila Tobias Associate Provost Wesleyan University Middletown, Connecticut Currently each of us is working independently at our own institutions to develop policies and procedures which will enhance the educational opportu- nities for men and women. We want to ensure that men and women are treated equally within an education institution, and that educational programs which take into consideration some of the special concerns of women are available. We found that we were dealing with similar problems and similar issues. Several of us were working on position papers dealing with exactly the same issues. Yet to devise and implement changes each of us had to develop our own background information and review the relevant literature. It became clear to us that much effort is duplicated because we have no easy way to coordinate our resources. At the same time successful innovations at one or more institutions would inevitably have a far reaching effect on other institutions, both private and public. We agreed at the end of a day's discussion to request funds to establish a New England regional office that will collect and distribute information designed to increase educational opportunities for women. It would be the
-3- function of such an office to formulate policies, collect data, and above all to facilitate rapid and continual exchange of information among all institutions which deal with the education of women at any level. We felt that such an office would enhance our own individual efforts, and be a source of valuable information as we tried to bring change on our own campuses. We hope that this regional office could be a model for other regional offices to be established in the next few years. 1. A Search and Referral Roster of Women Academics As affirmative action programs are adopted by universities and colleges there will be a need to expand the informal networks on which department chairmen now depend for candidates. Broad advertising, though recommended by some, can result in indiscriminate and hard-to-handle numbers of applicants writing for a single job opening. On the other hand, de facto "screening" is not easy to institutionalize and could be abused. Although there has been talk about academic rosters and referral services for women, no such roster has yet been established anywhere in the United States. In several of the professional associations, women's caucuses are advertising job openings in newsletters, but these are rarely selective and these efforts are haphazard. In no case are there cross disciplinary lists or systematic ways of matching applicants to openings. With these considerations in mind, it is proposed that the regional office mount a registry of women academics who might, potentially, be available for jobs in the area, and then consult with numbers of senior professors (male and female) in each field for the evaluation and placement of individual vitas. In this way we could offer an autonomous but selective roster of women. The panels of experts would constitute as well contacts to the “enlarged pool" of applicants. "Academic women" will be defined broadly to include academics as well as lawyers, business women and others, women administrators from outside
-4- academe who might be candidates for high or low level jobs in the universities. 2. Personnel Policies: Development of Models, Legal Guidance and Innovations This service would be provided both to individual women in a university community having questions and problems regarding their rights, and to institutions interested in experimenting with new personnel policies and benefit-structures, in order to propose adaptations that would accommodate part-time faculty members, for example. This office might for example analyze and make recommendations on anti-nepotism rulings which presently prevent husbands and wives from teaching in the same department or university. Several of the universities in the region have adopted positive declarations on nepotism but are no more ready to hire husband-and-wife teams than before. To go from "declaration" to implementation requires short-term action and policy-oriented research that a centrally located staff could undertake. Other issues are parental leaves; child care facilities and their cost- accounting vis-a-vis other benefits; recruitment, hiring, and promotion for academic and non-academic women; TIAA-CREF and benefits for married students., So far innovations such as part-time full status positions on the faculty (see new legislation at Stanford, Columbia University, Princeton, Cornell and Wesleyan) have had to be individually designed. Now, however, there are models to choose among and the office could disseminate these to university faculties that have not yet adopted new legislation. 3. Affirmative Action Affirmative action proposals constitute one of several modes of effecting personnel changes but since they are now being required of all colleges and universities, we list affirmative action as a separate service category for the regional office. This is particularly necessary given HEW's focus on blacks and the problems institutions have in distinguishing the structural barriers that operate against non-white from those that operate
-5- against women (not to mention the special problems of non-white women). Even where guidelines are standardized, the translation of guidelines into practicable and acceptable action procedures is still being done individually on each campus  and, in some cases, outside the very scrutiny of the women members of the community. 4. Establishment of Grievance Procedures We agreed after some discussion that there is probably no effective way for a regional unit to act as a supra-institutional appeal board, hearing individual grievances, although we do foresee such a unit providing legal guidance (see No. 1 above). On the other hand, universities are not equally adapted to responding to women's problems. Indifference, harassment, and retaliation are always possible within the academic profession; therefore, the service to be provided would be to recommend ways of protecting individual women and augmenting existing grievance procedures. This is one area which would be served by workshops. 5. Structural Innovations Women are still virtually absent from the center of governance of universities. Although many universities have appointed a "token" woman in charge, job descriptions, budgets and access to persons in power vary widely among those universities that have appointed a major woman administrator. First, through the roster, the regional office will help identify top women administrators. Second, the regional office can review existing structors to develop models which assure participation of women in the decision-making process of every institution which sets as its goal the education of women. 6. The Special Needs of Undergraduate, Graduate and Professional Women Students in Co-educational Environments These include counseling, medical care, curriculum changes (including women's studies) ways of making faculty more sensitive to the concerns of the  See Appendix 1
-6- women in the university. It is not proposed that the regional office study these problems, but rather that the studies that have been already done be shared and the successful innovations generated at one college be applied to others. SPECIFIC PROPOSAL Three year support of a New England regional office devoted to develop- ment and implementation of policies favorable to women students and scholars. Funding to cover salaries of one senior professional, one junior professional, one secretarial-research assistant and consultants; travel; reprinting of material; running of meetings of academic professionals; the full cost of the roster; and one or more "workshops" per year. A rough budget follows: Per year for 3 years: $12,000 Director (Two half-time directors) 8,000 Staff (Two half-time assistants) 7,000 Secretary $27,000 Total Staff 3,000 Travel 5,000 Office supplies 500 Entertainment 2,000 Publications 3,000 Consultants 2,500 Institute and for site workshops $43,000 25,000 Overhead $68,000 Per Year $200,000 for 3 years We anticipate the possibility of sharing expenses and charging for services beginning with year three.
PART-TIME FACULTY POLICY (Under serious and favorable consideration at Wesleyan University) "Moonlighters": Persons, employed elsewhere who merely teach one course at our University; no fringe benefits; no tenure or sabbatical accrual; no advisees or committee work; no departmental vote. "Twilighters": Persons not otherwise employed, but whom the department does not choose to give a regular part-time faculty position. No departmental vote. These will get pro-rated fringes, however. "Sunlighters": Regular faculty appointments, alike in every way except the amount of time worked. Pro-rated fringes, committee assignments, advisees, tenure and sabbatical accrual. Opportunity to negotiate for full-time at later date.
PART-TIME FACULTY MOONLIGHTERS I. Benefits 1. Salary - 1/6 base of rank per course 2. TIAA/CREF - 0 3. Insurance - 0 4. Grants in Support of Scholarship - 0 5. Sabbatical accrual - 0 6. Tenure decision accrual - 0 7. Length of appointment - One term or one year 8. Load - One course per term 9. Title - Visiting II. Duties 1. Department membership and vote - 0 2. Committee eligibility - 0 3. Advising - 0 TWILIGHTERS I. [Benefits] 1. 1/6 base of rank per course 2./3. Yes, if teaching at least one course each term with expectation of renewal 4. Yes, pro-rated 5. Yes, pro-rated 6. 0 7. One term or one year 8. One or two courses per term 9. Visiting II. [Duties] 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 SUNLIGHTERS I. [Benefits] 1. 1/5 of full salary (acc. to rank & service) per course 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes, pro-rated 5. Yes, pro-rated 6. Yes: not later than 17th term, 7. Standard: initial app't of 4 yrs., etc. 8. At least, half time 9. Standard II. [Duties] 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes