Proposal, New England Regional Resource Center for Women in Higher Education, 1971

Primary tabs

Results for

Download: Transcript

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 View All

Show transcript

[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 [1]. Documentation describing the exclusion of women from
 graduate school, research, faculty and administrative posts, and professional
 association is extensive [2]. 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
 
 [1]
 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"
 
 [2]
 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 [4] 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
 
 [4]
 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