Visions of Tomorrow: Academia still a boys’ club

Earlier this week, I received a Facebook invitation to Stanford 2020: Visions of Tomorrow. It looked awesome: “Come see 7 all-star professors talk about their research, why it matters, and what the world will look like in 2020.” I scanned the list of faculty with enthusiasm, noting how many of the professors I have admired or heard friends rave about.

But as I reached the end of the list, my enthusiasm quickly turned to confusion, then disgust. Of the seven faculty members who presented at Wednesday night’s symposium, exactly zero of them were women.

This level of gender disparity is unacceptable. And it’s particularly problematic for an event that explicitly looks toward the future. At last year’s symposium, there were two women; this year there are none. Maybe it’s just me, but in the future I’d like to see more gender equality, not less.

The more I thought about it, the more outrageous the discrepancy seemed. On Wednesday, I posted a sarcastic comment to the event page: “Visions of Tomorrow: Because in the future, there will be no female faculty.” Adam Adler ’12, who is listed as an event creator on the Facebook page, commented in response: “Because in the present, female faculty do not respond to email requests.” (He included a winky smiley face, too.)

It’s absurd and shameful that the nearly twenty groups that co-sponsored the event could not muster up even a single female faculty member to speak. I know from experience that planning academic events is a tricky business. The timeline of reaching out to faculty and hearing back about their availability can be stressful, especially if you seek a balanced diversity of departments, genders, races and backgrounds.

But that is not an adequate explanation for why there are no women on this panel. When people agree to organize an event like this, they are implicitly agreeing to the difficulties that such a task necessarily entails. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me if the event’s organizers had to email fifty female faculty members to secure three or four for this event. The planning process is invisible to the audience. The only thing we see is the end result, for which the organizers took responsibility. Simply put, I expect more – and I’m not the only one. (It took the staff of the Women’s Community Center, where I work, just a few hours to come up with seventeen all-star female professors who would have been a great fit for this event. We can help with brainstorming next time.)

It’s clear that event organizers gave significant consideration to securing faculty from diverse disciplines, including political science, religious studies, mathematics, and medicine. Why isn’t gender considered an important diversity concern?

It should be. Our culture’s consistent failure to position women as intellectual leaders contributes to stereotype threat, which impedes women’s leadership aspirations and reinforces stereotypic beliefs that men are naturally more fit for the academy than women.

Women comprise nearly 50 percent of Stanford’s undergraduate population; nation-wide, that figure is close to 60 percent. But as one moves into the upper echelons of academia, that parity disappears. At Stanford, women are 37 percent of graduate students, and a truly bleak 26 percent of faculty members. (So if the event organizers had passively represented the statistical reality of gender balance at Stanford – not deliberately provided a more equal vision, perish the thought – they would have had one or two women present.)

I would protest the lack of female faculty at an event like this no matter which university hosted it, but the absence is even more appalling because we’re not at just any university. The Stanford community prides itself on being a leading institution. We need to be setting the standard for gender equity in academia, just as we do for teaching and research. Our departments have their pick of the top scholars in every field. There’s no excuse for the exclusion of women from events like this one; female academics of exceptional renown are all around us.

My vision of tomorrow includes equal numbers of women in leadership positions and at decision-making tables. There’s nothing forward-thinking about an old-fashioned boys’ club.

 Miranda Mammen ’14

Tagged with:
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

    Oh! Bullshit. Stanford needs to be first and foremost a meritocracy. If there are not enough women in the pool to begin with, using affirmative  action in faculty recruiting is pernicious for Stanford’s future. You yourself understand that the pool of future professors (graduate students) is reduced from the pool of undergraduate students. There are certainly socioeconomic factors at work. Stanford cannot pretend that by giving women extra points when making hiring/tenure decisions those factors will be fixed. However what will happen if Stanford considers things other than pure merit in recruiting is that the university future will be doomed.

  • T.O.

    Google “myth of american meritocracy,” read some of the articles, and then come back and present yourself as someone who hasn’t had their face in their boot for their entire life. 

  • Does it matter?

    @Politically Incorrect – The author is not arguing for affirmative action in faculty recruiting. Her point is that this event was supposed to be a showcase of a few top Stanford professors and their “visions of tomorrow.” Although there are fewer women than men on the Stanford faculty, there are LOTS of all-star female professors. Overlooking the all-star female professors entirely for an event that is supposed to showcase a few top professors gives the impression that ALL of Stanford’s all-star professors are male – although that is not true. And, as the author said, Stanford should be leading the charge for gender equality in academia, not perpetuating it. She’s not talking about recruiting at all.

  • Rory

    The post above seems to argue two things: firstly, that the reason we have such an imbalance in the gender makeup of Stanford professors is that Stanford hires based purely on merit, and, for whatever reason (perhaps including some ‘socioeconomic factors’ that are holding women back) men are more likely to be qualified than women. Second, you argue that, given this fact, Stanford should not at all go out of its way to consciously and deliberately reduce gender inequality, since doing so would sacrifice our frontrunner status as a world-class institution – or, you put it, “[our] future will be doomed”.

    I take issue with both points. Firstly, it is quite untrue that the reason we have a gender imbalance is because Stanford hires on merit only. Do not fool yourself in thinking that the only factor that goes into a decision to hire someone (in a university or in any institution) is the merit of that individual. Much of it comes down to who you know, especially for the position of something like a professor, where it is quite difficult to find objective measures of value. The professors do not take a test to get the job (beyond those taken to get their PhD in the first place) nor do they have to demonstrate knowledge of specific skills as one might have to do in other professions. Much of the decision comes down to how the head of the department and the other professors ‘feel’ about the candidates ‘fit’ for the job. Perhaps they have collaborated with that person on a research paper and can vouch for their intelligence. But since the profession is already dominated by men, these subjective decisions about how a candidate ‘feels’ are being made by men. You lament about Stanford ‘giving women extra points’, but you don’t seem concerned about the fact that in the status quo, men are already given extra points precisely in so far as they are men. Hardly a meritocracy.

    This brings me to your next point; let us concede for a moment that the hiring process was a meritocracy, and that men had no advantage in so far as they men in getting hired. If this were the case, we should still demand that Stanford put aside caring about beating Harvard in the next league rankings and start caring about the glaring gender inequality in society. Part of the reason that there exist so few female professors is because women graduating from college see the imbalance in graduate school and beyond and are deterred from pursuing post graduate studies because society seems to have decided that its a ‘guy thing’. This vicious cycle must be broken, and if doing so means dropping a place in the rankings (which i don’t believe it will) then so be it. Making this change won’t alone ‘fix the problem’ as you say, but neither will passively propping up the patriarchal status quo. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

    I agree that she is not explicitly arguing for affirmative action in recruiting/tenure decisions, but that’s the argument she is making implicitly. I think that both Stanford and the world are better off when meritocracy trumps everything else. I also hate this obsession with statistically mirroring “society”, which is also affirmative action of sorts. A few years ago, a Princeton University sociologist did a study that convincingly showed that this obsession is discriminating against Asian American students http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Pub_US%20News_do-elite-pr.pdf . I am all for equal opportunity. One of the beauties of US Higher Education is that you can begin your academic career at a Community College and end up being an acclaimed scientist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter. However, results have to be earned through hard work. Both the students and society benefit when equal opportunity and hard work are the key to success.

  • Mar

    Define “merit.” Is it just about the end result (as previously stated…something that is pretty hard to assess objectively in the case of professors) or is it about the progress someone has made, the obstacles(including gender bias) they have overcome?  

    “Equal opportunity” may be equal but it will never be equitable if we continue to dismiss real inequities that exist within our society. 

    P.S. You’re kidding yourself if you think Stanford or even the U.S. as a country are meritocracies. (Legacy, trust fund babies much?)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

     See my reply to Rory above

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

    More bullshit. I am going to share some info about myself to help me make my point. My mother tongue is Spanish. I graduated from Stanford with MSc and PhD degrees in Engineering. My undergraduate grades, my graduate classes as well as my standardized test results were above (in some cases well above) the average of my peers. Yet, every time I introduce myself with my name, people have second thoughts about my achievements. Most people seem to think that I got extra points for being “Hispanic”. First I take issue with being categorized as Hispanic. I am not Mexican (which is what the code word “Hispanic” really stands for in the United States). I am no more “Hispanic” than WASP Americans are British (or Nigerians since Nigeria also has English as its official language). Yet, because of all this affirmative action bullshit, my existence in the professional world is harder than what it should be. It is true that minorities have always had to work extra hard to make their way in the US, however, nobody questions the merit credentials of Asian Americans while almost everybody seems to think that when a Spanish speaking person or a Black person made it big is because of affirmative action.
    It might seem noble to aspire to have the socioeconomic background of high achievers mirror that of society at large. However, affirmative action misses the point that the environment in which different people grow up does matter and that giving extra points to people because of some random criteria (such as race, ethnicity or sex) does not only fix the original problems but it makes matters worse for those from those backgrounds that make it big.
    It is a fact that most Spanish speaking Americans grow up in impoverished backgrounds where the culture is more interested in heavy partying and watching soccer than in high achievement. Just as it is a fact, that due to the nature of Chinese/Indian immigration, most Asian Americans grow up in environments that value education and achievement. Given “extra points” to Hispanics in admission/recruiting/tenure decisions does absolutely nothing to alter these facts. I am afraid similar dynamics go on with women in academia.

    As to the idea that in faculty hiring merit doesn’t matter as much, I can only speak for the departments that I know in the school of engineering at Stanford. In that case, merit is by far the only factor. Why? Because there is a fierce competition between Stanford, MIT and UC Berkeley to be the top engineering school in the country. Nobody wants to be responsible for the fall of his/her school in the rankings, and the only way not to fall is to hire the best faculty and admit the best students. And yes, that means that there are cases in which the best hire is a woman, and I am perfectly fine with that.

    Your last point is preposterous. Yo are basically suggesting that we make the whole tenure process less demanding to accommodate women. It’s laughable. We don’t make war easier so that women  can take part of combat. We do make sports easier for women, and guess what, nobody gives a damn for women sports. So, if the whole tenure process is unappealing for most women, they will have to  find something else to do. That said, with the current process, women who make it are guaranteed that nobody will question their qualifications or merit. It is assumed that they play by the same rules as everybody else and they made it to the top. More power to them!

  • Al

    I think the idea of a “meritocracy” is irrelevant to this conversation. Do you really believe think that Adam and Phillip went through all of the Stanford faculty and chose the 7 very best ones? It’s obvious that they were selecting for a diversity of expertise among top faculty members. 

    Those 7 speakers could have easily been replaced by 7 equally worthy faculty members many times over. The point is that the selection process was arbitrary and subjective, and the panel was meant to be holistic more than anything else. Especially as more and more women enter faculty positions, the exclusion of female voices from a conversation about the future came across as more regressive than forward-thinking. 

    This is not to say that I think the guys who organized the colloquium are bigoted or misogynistic. They were just thoughtless.

  • Lib

    It looks like the organizers worked fairly hard, so assuming they aren’t all sexist then they did make a balanced effort to find the best in each field.

    Given this, I think it’s fine. It would be a bigger failure to the community if they chose women simply because they were women, even if the ones they contacted were (as it seems) less receptive than the male speakers, of if they are not as much an expert as the peers selected. 

    Do you honestly think your experience at this conference will be severely biased and ruined because it’s a man instead of a women speaking about clean energy or mathematical theories?

    Will you have trouble empathizing and appreciating tech policy because the speaker does not have the XX chromosomes like you but rather have XY? 

  • Rory

    I must say your position is quite bewildering to me. Firstly, you have quite suddenly shifted the debate to one of race as well as gender. I’m not particularly opposed to that – although there are important differences between the groups, I think in this setting it is reasonable to treat both as similarly marginalized groups in academia.

    You seem to acknowledge that there still exists inherent racial prejudice in society today (I agree), an argument you support by saying that you are still treated unequally, despite the fact you have exceptional credentials, and, therefore, have more than proven your intellectual merits. So we agree on the problem. What perplexes me is that your solution seems to be to provide less, not more, help to those being treated unfairly. You seem to want to just play into the racial stereotyping and force those who have been disadvantaged to try to overcome that disadvantage themselves in order to gain respect in the eyes of those who you yourself have just said are racist. Frankly, it is no concern of mine whether certain bigoted members of society are going to view people as less worthy because of the existence of programs designed to help those in need.

    Your point here is eerily similar to that made by the Toronto police officer, who suggested that women “should avoid dressing like sluts” in order to avoid being raped. In both cases, one is validating and playing into the beliefs and opinions of those who are holding patently immoral viewpoints. I don’t think that is the right way to go about making policy.

    Now, I don’t require anything so stringent as “the socioeconomic background mirror that of society at large”. What I do insist upon is institutions like Stanford doing their utmost to push back against a system which has denied women equal opportunity for generations.

    Finally, you seem to implicitly assume that prejudice is deliberate or at least conscious; this is far from true. I’m sure the departments at Stanford do prioritize having the best faculty in the country, irrespective of gender; I’m sure also that most, if not all, genuinely do not believe that women and/or minorities are inherently less suitable for the position than men. I tend to think that most people that make decisions which marginalize women or minorities do so unconsciously – but the fact that it is unconscious is little comfort for those being marginalized. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

    Don’t deviate the conversation. What I said is what I said. I have explained the reasons why I am absolutely opposed to affirmative action, be it for reasons of race/ethnicity (for your information, I am “white” but I happen to speak Spanish) or gender. The only thing we should demand is equality of opportunity, period. I repeat EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

    Affirmative action does nothing to advance equality of opportunity, on the contrary, it contributes to social injustice and to ostracize those women and minorities who make it to the top. Nobody would question the merit of a women or minority high achiever if it weren’t for the pernicious effect of affirmative action. Why should a Hispanic, Black or woman from a wealthy background be given extra points in admission/recruiting decisions while a white male who comes from a humble background, but better qualified-as measured by grades/standardized test or publications-.  be rejected? Nonsense. You want more women in academia? You better convince your gals that they go to grad school (there is enough a pool in college); then convince those who make it through grad school to be ready to endure the tenure process. If they are unwilling to do so, maybe, just as in sports, we will have to create universities with “women only” faculty hiring policies. Who will be willing to go there as a student is a different story :D .

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

    And, as I stressed in my first comment, the reason I blame affirmative action for whatever social rejection Hispanics/Blacks/women face in society these days is because history shows that minorities have always been asked more in America to let their voice heard. That’s nothing new. The beauty of America is that eventually, once these minorities prove they are as valuable as the rest, they are fully accepted. What makes affirmative action different is that because these minorities are given opportunities unrelated to their merit or hard work they perpetuate the myth of their unworthiness in the first place. So while minorities that were in the past feared (such as European Jews, Italians,  or Chinese) are now fully accepted, affirmative action perpetuates the social rejection to Hispanics/Blacks/Women putting in the same bad those minorities who earned their place and those who were unworthy of the opportunities.

  • Rory

    You seem insistent on maintaining a kind of is-ought fallacy – that is, you argue that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. We both agree that immigrants/minorities have, throughout history had to work harder than others to prove their worth (though, incidentally, I don’t remember White Europeans having to prove their worthiness to the Indigenous native americans when whites were the immigrants/minorities in America). Where we disagree is what ought to be the case. I don’t think that any ethnic group should have to undergo extra hardship in order to prove themselves in the eyes of those in power. 

    You also seem committed to the idea that the only people who receive opportunities unrelated to merit are minorities through affirmative action programs. This is simply untrue. You don’t seem at all concerned, for example, to rail against the practice of providing extra ‘points’ to students who have legacy, or some other connection. Consider a concrete example. In the Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger, which dealt with affirmative action, the petitioner (a white individual) attacked the University of Michigan for admitting a dozen or so minority students who had lower test scores than she did. What she didn’t seem worried about, and what was never even mentioned, were the literally hundreds of white students who also had lower test scores than she did but who also were accepted because of various other factors, e.g. where they live, legacy etc: all factors which are not directly based on race, but quite clearly have huge correlations to race. 

    Like the petitioner, you only seem upset about one form of imbalance and not the other.

  • Esqg

     It is not “fine”.   This is not about any one speaker.  It is not about affirmative action, as the original article explained.  It’s about young women being alienated when the “future” looks like it’s going to be decided by men.  It’s about how when that happens, women who may be more qualified than the men around them may nevertheless be discouraged from pursuing their goals, and the university then loses talent.  Can you really not understand that?

    Oh, and nobody knows anyone else’s chromosomes just by looking at them.  It may sound scientific to conflate “XX” with “woman” and “XY” with “man”, but only if your knowledge of biology ends before high school.

  • Esqg

    Those last few sentences in which you fantasize about women not being “tough enough for grad school” are pretty revealing.  Maybe you shouldn’t write so much.

  • IG

    They prefer to hire friends and relatives. And they easily get rid off people, if, say, a dean has “a better candidate”. Of course not every department is like that, but one particular person in one particular department prefers “her/his people”. And I think the Dean closes her/his eyes on this. Well… she/he has some connections, which are very important for them to get money. I don’t like it, but I keep working for them because I need money. Hope to find a position in some other department

Login to your account

Can't remember your Password ?

Register for this site!