Association
of Collegiate Schools of Planning
|
Association
of Collegiate Schools of Planning
|
|
This page last updated |
The Recruitment and Retention of Faculty
Women and Faculty of Color in Planning Education:
Survey Results On April 22, 1990 the ACSP Executive
Committee received the report of the ACSP working committee on The Recruitment and
Retention of Women and Minorities in Planning Education. The Executive
Committee felt it important that all faculty in ACSP schools receive the
report, in the form of a special issue of ACSP UPDATE. The ACSP Board and the
editors of UPDATE urge you to read it and discuss it with your colleagues. Submitted to the ACSP Executive Board,
April, 1990 BY: 1987-89
Committee on the Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minorities in Planning
Education
FORWARD "I don’t
think an outsider especially a "non-traditional" candidate has much of
a chance at all. My observation is that since 1980 the universities like other
U.S. employers have got the message that affirmative action is not going to be
enforced and have acted accordingly. I think that a person’s age, race,
ethnicity, social class, gender, religion, sexual orientation and handicap
status all contribute to his or her distance from the WASP male ideal, a
distance perceived as "strangeness" or "threat." The
greater the distance, the less chance of employment." (white male
respondent, Ph.D. survey) In Fall of 1988, ACSP President Don
Krueckeberg established a working committee on the Recruitment and Retention of
Women and People of Color in Planning Education. He asked Marsha Ritzdorf, University
of Oregon, to chair the committee. At the first meeting, the committee decided
that it was impossible to address all the issues of both student and faculty
recruitment and retention in the one year available to pursue their task. It
was decided to focus on issues of faculty and that we would engage in the
collection of data and anecdotal information regarding recruitment and
retention issues. This report catalogs the result of that endeavor. Throughout the report you will find a
treasure of anecdotal reports from Ph.D. recipients and current faculty women
and faculty of color. In some cases, the remarks are slightly altered to make
them into complete sentences. In all cases, the names of institutions and
individuals have been deleted. The words "people of color/faculty of
color" and "minorities" are used interchangeably throughout this
report. It is impossible to come up with one term with which everyone is happy.
Because of the appallingly small number of faculty of color, the results are
not broken down any further than that (except to report the number of Blacks,
Hispanics, Asian-American/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans who are among
our colleagues). It is a sad statement on their numbers in our profession that
any further breakdown by sex and race would destroy their confidentiality. The committee would like to thank everyone
who took the time to fill out and return questionnaires. People who were
willing to share their specific experiences with us immeasurably enriched this
report. They have our very special thanks. In addition, we thank Ms. Marsha Greer, a
MUP student in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the
University of Oregon who served as the Graduate Research Assistant to this
project for the past year. Without her persistence, outstanding research
skills, and help this document would have been far harder to complete. Thank
you also to Paul Brozovsky and Janice Gotchall who provided statistical and
computer advice and Marguerite Canaday, our Wordperfect expert and final
typist. The financial assistance which made this report possible was provided
by ACSP and, at the University of Oregon, by the Department of Planning, Public
Policy and Management and the Center for the Study of Women in Society. 1988-1989 Committee
on The Recruitment and Retention of Women and People of Color In Planning
Education Marsha Ritzdorf, Chair, University of Oregon Peter Fischer, University of Iowa Marsha Greer, Graduate Assistant, University
of Oregon William Harris, University of Virginia Catherine Ross, Georgia Institute of
Technology William Siembeida, University of New Mexico Sylvia White, California Polytechnic-Pomona Suzie Wirka, Student Representative,UCLA NATIONAL ISSUES Available research shows that women faculty
and faculty of color are treated differently in higher education. They aren’t
paid as much as white male faculty in the same rank; they aren’t promoted at
the same rate; letters recommending them are often written differently; they
aren’t included in the informal decision-making network, and they often feel
isolated in their work environment. Although Federal programs and
legislation were designed to eliminate differential treatment based on sex,
race, or national origin, they have not equalized the status. Women and men of
color still face an uphill road in higher education. Although the number of women has increased
in all ranks since 1975, the difference in tenure rates of women and men is
significant. In 1975 (in all institutions), 64 percent of men were tenured
compared to 46 percent of women. In 1988, 69 percent of men were tenured while
the percentage of women tenured faculty remained the same at 46 percent (Gray,
1988). Also, in 1988, 18 percent of full—time faculty women were in non-tenure
track positions compared to 7 percent of faculty men. Women are also more
frequently found in part-time positions. Menges and Exum (1983) state that although
student populations have moved toward "greater gender, cultural, and
racial inclusiveness," faculty women and faculty of color have not made
significant strides. Data for minority faculty is difficult to find and
interpret. Women of color suffer double discrimination. In 1985, Black women
constituted 1.9 percent of full-time faculty in higher education (Moses, 1989). Although tenure and promotion procedures may
affect all faculty, women and minorities are more affected than White male
faculty by the lack of their presence in the senior ranks that review them
(Menges Exum, 1983). Women and minority faculty are often asked to serve on
many committees which may take them away from activities that are rewarded as
scholarly and counted more heavily in review processes. "Women and
minorities may be offered more such ‘opportunities’ than are White males"
(Menges, Exum, 1983, p.131). In addition, teaching and advising loads are often
heavier for women (SandIer, 1986; Simeone, 1987). White men have defined what scholarship is
in Academia (Spender, 1980; Menges, Exum, 1983). Women and minorities may
pursue issues that contrast or contradict the accepted White male learning.
Their research may not be accepted as scholarly because it challenges set
conventions and often employs different research methods (Sampson, 1978;
Menges, Exum, 1983; Exum et. al 1984). People of color are concentrated in certain
academic fields. In 1980-81, of all doctorates received by Blacks, 53% were in
education and 20% in social sciences; Hispanics were concentrated in education
and humanities; Asians in physical and biological sciences and engineering, and
Native Americans in education and social sciences (Exuni, 1983). Their total numbers are very small and
recent articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education have emphasized the
declining pool. In addition, people of color with Ph.D’s can seek and obtain
better jobs for more money outside of higher education (Suinn, Witt, 1983;
Grigsby, 1988). Although there has been an increase in the
number of women and minority faculty in the past 20 years, the increase is
smallest and slowest at the top of the status hierarchy. In research
universities (the location of most planning graduate programs), "In
recruitment, selection, and promotion decisions, the academic market is
characterized by reliance on precedence and custom, absence of clear and
universally agreed-upon formal standards, use of ambiguous criteria, and
closed, confidential decision-making" (Exum et.al.,1984). Women and
Minorities must work harder to prove their legitimacy and authority and must
constantly demonstrate excellence.(Exum et.al., 1984, p.306) EXISTING REPORTS ON MINORITIES AND WOMEN IN
PLANNING EDUCATION In 1987, Amy Waters and William Harris
surveyed the 63 accredited or provisionally accredited planning programs and
asked them to describe participation by African Americans in their department both
historically and at the present moment. Twenty-nine departments (46%)
responded. Seven indicated they had never had a black faculty member. The first
full-time appointment occurred at the University of Pennsylvania in 1964, and
most of the hiring occurred between 1968-1976 when 14 Blacks were appointed to
full-time status. In 1988, J. Eugene Grigsby III presented
ACSP with a report on Minority Participation in Planning Education. He
addressed disturbing questions concerning the invisibility of minorities and
the role that minority faculty could/should play in shaping curriculum and
recruitment and retention of minority students. He commented on the importance
of minority faculty in shaping accurate knowledge about the critical policy
questions facing the majority of urban and metropolitan regions as their
population becomes culturally diverse in sizable (often majority) proportions. Grigsby noted that planning programs are not
graduating minority Ph.D.’s, and that many of those who graduate are going into
other professions where compensation and opportunities for promotion are
better. Hill (1990) argued that the methods of
recruiting are to blame for the lack of minority faculty in planning education.
To solve this problem, Hill proposed a program consisting of identification,
matriculation, summer support, and dissertation support. He cited the success
the planning program at Cleveland State University has had with this approach.
One of the goals is to broaden the intellectual views of a department, so, like
Grigsby suggests, the minority view is included in planning education. In 1987, Yvette Galindo, Mary Beth Welch,
and Susie Wirka presented the ACSP Board with a report on Gender, Race, and
Disability in Planning Education oriented towards student recruitment,
retention, and passage into the profession. On behalf of the Feminist Planners
and Designers Group and the Minority Association of Planners and Architects
(both at UCLA), they asked the board to adopt a resolution addressing this
issues (Appendix C). Ross (1990) indicated that only 11 women
were full-time full professors in planning education. She cited a 1985 APA
survey of professional planners where results show more women are entering the
profession and the potential pool for future academicians has like-wise grown.
But, the report also showed a significant reduction in the number of Hispanic
planners. She addressed recommendations to increase recruitment and improve
retention of women and minorities in planning including a call for a statement by
ACSP in support of the increased representation of minorities and females in
the profession and any member institutions, and the need for the PAB to include
in accreditation an evaluation of an increase in a programs s minority and
female representation. METHODOLOGY In the summer of 1988, a series of three
questionnaires were mailed to the three groups that the committee felt could
provide valuable input on the questions surrounding recruitment and retention.
Copies of the questionnaire are included as Appendix A of this report. The
groups surveyed were: a. current department chairs of ACSP
member planning programs; b. current faculty women and faculty of
color in ACSP member schools; and c. recipients of Ph.D.s in Planning since
1980. There were myriad questions which were
identified as important. The answer to three demographic questions seemed
important to frame the parameters of any recruitment efforts which would
improve the numbers of women and minorities in planning education. 1. Was the anecdotal evidence that 25-33%
of planning faculty would retire in the next ten years true? 2. Could we develop an accurate list of
faculty broken down by race, gender and ethnicity? 3. Were planning programs hiring planning
Ph.D.s or primarily Ph.D. graduates from other disciplines? The remaining questions focused on the whole
spectrum of experiences of women and people of color as students and faculty
members. In summary they are: 1. Are Ph.D. students considering careers
in planning academia? 2. Is there a difference between white
males and under represented groups in terms of hiring, promotion, decision to
choose an academic career, etc.? 3. Do women students and students of color
experience discrimination in school? 4. What is the importance of mentoring and
is there a difference in the mentoring experience among groups? 5. For those Ph.D’s who had experienced the academic interview process,
what were the most important positive and negative experiences? 6. How did candidates evaluate whether a school
would have an environment which welcomed cultural, racial, and gender
diversity? 7. If current holders of planning Ph.D.’s
had it to do again would they consider a Ph.D. in planning or at all? 8. What was the opinion of the three
groups about differential treatment of women and people of color in hiring in
planning education? 9. What was the opinion of the three
groups on the inclusion/exclusion of sufficient materials about race, gender,
disability, and international issues in planning education? Was there a
difference? 10. Among teaching faculty, was there a
difference between white men, women and faculty of color regarding the
inclusion of course materials related to race, gender, ethnicity, and
disability? Did they include materials on these topics in their own courses? 11. Was there a difference in the perceptions
of chairs and faculty on issues of fairness regarding departmental resources,
committee assignments, etc.? 12. Was there a difference in perception
between chairs and faculty about the acceptability of research on race and
gender in planning departments? 13. How many women and faculty of color felt
they had been discriminated against in their careers? In their current
departments? What specific incidents were they willing to share? 14. How many women and/or men had been
sexually harassed as a student? as a faculty member? What specific incidents
were they willing to share? The following sections of the report begin
with the answers to the three demographic questions. The results of the questionnaires
by group follow, beginning with the women faculty and faculty of color,
followed by the chairs, and lastly the Ph.D. surveys. A brief concluding
section comes after these results. CAVEATS In comparing the answers of Ph.D.
respondents and current teaching faculty, we are often dipping into the same
group of respondents. There is no way of knowing how often this occurs. It is
possible that we had a heavier representation of current planning teaching
faculty who chose to answer the Ph.D. questionnaire. Since there were/are only 4-5 chairs in ACSP
member schools who are either women or minorities (at the moment 3 white women
and two black men), there is little overlap between chairs and faculty. All anecdotal comments received were
included in the text with the exception of one which was illegible. Within each
section of the report, each anecdote reflects a different person’s experience.
All comments are grouped at the end of the subsection to which they apply. SURVEY RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics In order to have the latest possible
demographic figures, ACSP member schools (in North America), as identified in
the roster in the back of the 1988 Guide to Graduate Education in Planning, were
contacted in January, 1990 for updated figures. Seventy-seven schools responded
to our request out of 115. Forty-eight (63.2%) are accredited while
twenty-eight (36.8%) are not. The total number of women faculty and
faculty of color is small. Of 570 faculty teaching 50% or more time in
planning at responding schools, only 99 (17%) are women and only 79 (14%) are
people of color. FACULTY BY RACE/ETHNICITY
The table shows that about 71% of the
faculty members in responding institutions are in accredited programs. About 4%
of the total in accredited programs are Blacks, while Hispanics comprise about 2%,
and Asian American/Pacific Islanders make up about 4%. White faculty in
accredited programs comprise 61% of the total faculty. There are no Native
American faculty in accredited programs as reported by institutions This table
suggests: 71% of the white
faculty are in accredited programs 78% of the black
faculty are in accredited programs 67% of the Asian
American/Pacific Islander faculty are in accredited programs 0% of the Native
American faculty are in accredited programs 100% of the
Hispanic faculty are in accredited programs 1. Race
and Gender of Current Faculty at Responding Institutions Only 11.5% of the total tenured faculty are
women and only 12.7% are people of color. Only 22.7% of the faculty of color
are tenured women, and only 17.7% of the total tenured white faculty are women
in the responding institutions. RACE AND GENDER OF CURRENT FACULTY MEMBERS
2. Retirements In January, 1990 all ACSP member schools in
North America were contacted and asked to respond to an inquiry about the
retirements they anticipate in the next five years and in the five years after
that. The results confirmed the anecdotal evidence that we face serious
retirement issues. Of the 115 institutions, 77 (67%) responded, with one of the
respondents refusing to give us the information (see Appendix B for list of
responding schools). In those schools which responded, twenty-nine percent
(29%) of the 570 faculty members who are 50% or more time in planning
are expected to retire in the next 10 years. 3. Are
Planning Ph.D.’s Hired by Planning Schools? Only one-third of the teaching faculty have Ph.D’s
in Planning in the responding schools. This figure is slightly higher if only
hires since 1980 are calculated. In that period, 43 percent of the total men
hired and 37 percent of the total women hired had Ph.D.s in Planning. Total Number and % with Ph.D. in Planning
The remainder of the faculty have degrees across
a multitude of fields and 13.3 percent of the faculty members do not have
Ph.D’s in any field. Ph.D. FIELDS OF ALL FACULTY IN RESPONDING
SCHOOLS
SURVEY RESULTS: WOMEN FACULTY AND FACULTY OF
COLOR One hundred-fourteen surveys were delivered
to faculty women and people of color. At the time the survey was distributed, the
means of identifying them was a combination of all member schools in the 1988
ACSP Guide listings and anecdotal knowledge as to the identification of faculty
of color. Seventy (6 1%) completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty-nine
(52%) of the respondents were women while 11(10%) were men. Fifteen percent of
the total (women and men) were people of color. For purposes of this survey
that includes Hispanic respondents. Incidence of Overall Discrimination Nearly two-thirds of the respondents
indicated that they had experienced job-related discrimination based on race,
sex, or ethnic origin. Fifty-one percent experienced discrimination as a
student (54% of the women and 59% of the people of color). A larger percent, 61
percent, indicated that as faculty they have experienced discrimination.
Eighty-eight percent of the faculty of color (men and women) and 58 percent of
the women experienced discrimination. Over a third (37%) indicated that they
had experienced such discrimination in the department where they are currently
employed. This includes 55 percent of the men of color and one-third of the
women. "The
discrimination is always there but it is always subtle." "The worst
type of discrimination is often very subtle. I was in one school for Jour years
with 40 other colleagues. Yet only one would ever discuss work with me. All of
the others (overwhelmingly male) would ask questions about my house or child.
Whenever 1 entered a group discussion, the conversation shifted to jokes." "I am
consistently punished in subtle and unsubtle ways (such as a lack of graduate
student support) for being a feminist." "I feel
that women and people of color, especially those whose work relates to issues
of special concern to women or people of color are seriously undervalued in
planning education." Rank In concert with national research concerning
rank, male respondents outrank female respondents. This is most striking in the
assistant professor ranks, where thirty—nine percent of our female respondents
are assistants, and only nine percent of the male respondents are assistant
professors. RANK (by percentage) n=70 Respondents
Although their numbers are small, minority
male faculty seem to be progressing to higher ranks at a more rapid rate.
Ninety-one percent of the men are tenured while only 56 percent of the women respondents
are tenured. However, the flip side of this issue is the fact that there are
more women entering planning academia and therefore there are more of them in
assistant professor positions. NUMBER OF HIRES
FOR 77 INSTITUTIONS RESPONDING TO SURVEY
Twenty-eight percent of the Ph.D. graduates
in planning between 1980-89 were women, and 30 percent of the hires made in the
same period are women (although only one-third of them had Ph.D’s in Planning).
Of all women faculty, 51.5 percent have been in their present position
for six years or less, while only 23.8 percent of the men have been in their
positions for six years or less. However, the statistical relationship
between gender and tenure is highly significant. Of the 99 women, 49.5 percent
are tenured and 50.5 percent are not. For men, 80.9 percent are tenured
and 18.5 percent are not. This has a p<.000l. Although the data does not
support a conclusion that women are currently being discriminated against in
the tenure process, rates should be carefully evaluated again in a few years
since national studies confirm that tenure for women faculty is a problem in
most disciplines (Simeone, 1987), and a significant proportion of the women
faculty are just now beginning to come up for tenure. Recruitment In order to assess whether or not women and
people of color are identified and recruited, questions were posed to existing
faculty and to department chairs concerning advertisement for positions,
identification and recruitment of women and people of color, and affirmative
action guidelines and procedures. Forty-four percent of the faculty indicated
that their search committees did not channel advertisements to publications
directed to women and people of color at either the state or national levels.
Thirty percent said yes, while 24 percent didn’t know. Sixty-seven percent said their search
committees are responsible for being certain that women and people of color are
identified and recruited, 17 percent said no while 13 percent didn’t know. Forty-one percent indicated that search
committees were given guidelines by the department or institution concerning
questions and criteria that cannot be used according to affirmative action law
while 24 percent said no guidelines were given and 33 percent didn’t know. Several
faculty members pointed out that just because search committees are given
guidelines there is nothing to enforce their use. They commented: "I was
asked several illegal questions during my interview. It was stated outright by
the program head that if I was a "troublemaker" (a code word used to
describe another department member who had accused the chair and department
head of being Sexist and named them in a class action Suit by the women faculty
in our state) like another woman in the department that I wasn’t wanted." "As a top
student applying for a tenure track job. 1 was in formed that the reason my
application was not acceptable to the department was directly related to sexist
attitudes." "It is
assumed that search committees are responsible for the inclusion of women and
people of color in the hiring pool whether they do it or not depends on the
individuals." "I was
harassed twice during job interviews." At one interview a male department
chair said: "if I hire a white male. I know I don’t have to worry about
him going of I and getting pregnant right away." Hiring Fifty-three percent of respondents indicated
that the department is required to report distribution of position offers by sex,
rank, and race/ethnicity while 16 percent say they aren’t required to report
this information and 29 percent don’t know if such a requirement exists. In concert with reporting requirements,
women and people of color were asked if departments were required to report
distribution of hires by sex, rank, and race/ethnicity. Fifty-nine percent said
yes, 10 percent said no and 31 percent didn’t know. Half of the respondents (50%) didn’t
know if departments were required to report the terms and conditions of employment
by sex, rank, and race/ethnicity. Asked whether institutional policies exist
which require that women and people of color candidates be given preference in
future hiring, 39 percent said yes while 40 percent said no. Although it is essentially the job of the
chair to know the answers to the above questions, it is disturbing that such a
large percentage of women and faculty of color did not know the answers to
these questions which, while not affecting their hires, will affect the hiring
of future colleagues. When asked what factors influenced their
first teaching job search, 61 percent of the respondents indicated job
availability while 39 percent indicated they liked the location. Twenty-one
percent indicated someone recommended them for the job. In subsequent job searches, only 37 percent
indicated job availability. Twenty-nine percent were interested in the prestige
of the program, 26 percent indicated someone recommended them and, 21 percent
indicated they wanted to be on a more collegial faculty. "feel that
I was encouraged to apply for jobs in which the department had no intention of
hiring me but wanted a
woman on their list for affirmative action reporting purposes." Salaries Forty-seven percent indicated that the
institution doesn’t consistently apply procedures for identifying salary
inequities between women and men faculty while 31 percent didn’t know whether
they do or not. When salary inequities exist, only 21
percent indicated that the institution takes timely corrective action to reduce
the inequities (40% didn’t know). At the departmental level, only 41.4 percent
indicated that their department provide equitable distribution of opportunities
for summer employment to increase base income, 21.4% said the department did
not provide equitable opportunities, 14.3% did not know, and 15.7% said
it was not applicable to their department. "In my
first academic job, the environment was discriminating, women received lower
salaries and less advancement." "I have
always been the lowest paid faculty member. A new white male assistant
professor was recently hired at $6,000 above my salary as an associate
professor." Retention The major problems for women and people of
color are going to be retention and advancement rather than entrance. Distribution of department resources,
tenure, promotion, compensation, and fringe benefits are all factors in
retaining faculty. In addition, the departmental climate is extremely important
as well. Respectful treatment by colleagues and an atmosphere free of sexual and
racial innuendos and harassment are important for retaining female and minority
scholars. While women respondents often discussed incidents of overt
discrimination, faculty of color consistently reported they felt they were
harassed in covert and subtle ways. "As you
move up the ladder you really feel the discrimination." 1. Tenure
and Promotion It goes without saying that the most
important issues for a young academic revolve around the potential of tenure
and promotion. Only 57 percent of the respondents indicate that their
institution requires departments to develop explicit written criteria by which
junior faculty are evaluated for tenure. Of the 33 percent who said the
institution doesn’t have that requirement, 11 percent indicated their
department had developed written criteria anyway. In the remaining 22 percent
of institutions, there are no requirements and often no clear criteria. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents
indicated that all faculty under tenure consideration must be informed in
writing in advance of the tenure review process. Seventy-four percent indicated
that a vote of all tenured members of the department is required for tenure
decisions, and 69 percent indicated an appeals process is provided for a
negative tenure vote. Several respondents reported bitter experiences from
their tenure processes which they related to their race/gender. Sixty-seven percent of women and people of
color indicated that there are no written guidelines either from the department
or institution to encourage equitable retention of faculty women and people of
color. Over half of the respondents don’t know whether the department is
required to report on the distribution by sex, race, or ethnicity of contract
renewals and non-renewals, suspensions, dismissals, or resignations. When asked if the institution conducts
analyses by sex, age, race for all academic promotions, 34 percent said yes, 34
percent said no, and 29 percent didn’t know. Seventy-three percent indicate that research
on issues concerning women and people of color are given recognition as
appropriate scholarship by their department. However, for those who are located
in departments where their research is devalued, it is a major issue. Several faculty members mentioned that they
felt it was difficult to get research concerning gender and race published in
journals which were considered acceptable to their colleagues. One person
specifically mentioned that his/her department only counted journals which are
mentioned in the Social Science Citation Index (which research has shown has an
under representation of such articles). There were many comments related to
these retention issues. "When I
went up for tenure, a number of new requirements were made up especially for me
to meet." "The faculty
consistently gave the worst votes to women for tenure while supporting several
men who had never published with unanimous departmental votes." "In my
former teaching position, there was overt discrimination for tenure
review." "At my last
institution my chair was non-supportive. It was clear to me that I could not
get through a tenure process, so I left." "In my
tenure case non-tenured faculty without Ph.D.’s evaluated my case...it was a
mess. I was denied tenure consideration because I was the wife of another
university employee." "I had to
take my tenure/promotion case to court." "I couldn’t
get promoted until I filed a formal grievance." "Minority
faculty members are easily dismissed and are held to more Strenuous standards. "My
superior regards my scholarly efforts as insignificant. He only comments on my
appearance and never my work." "I’ve had
to earn faculty respect over many years. They were not supportive of my area of
interest." "I do not
feel supported. My research is devalued and their is limited moral support for
change." "A recent
tenure review of another colleague made it clear research on women and people
of color was not valued in our department." "Recognition
of scholarship on women or people of color is begrudging." "My
interests have not been viewed as valuable or important by my colleagues." "There are
reviewers for journals who are harsh about minority issues research." "For your
research on women or people of color to count it has to be in a
"recognized" journal." 2. Distribution
of Department Resources Most respondents felt their departments were
doing a good job of equitably distributing resources and assignments to tasks
of higher or lower institutional prestige. DO YOU FEEL THE FOLLOWING ARE FAIRLY
DISTRIBUTED IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? N=59 Women 11 Men Responding "Yes"
Several respondents did share their
frustration about the distribution of duties and resources in their
departments: "The men
in my department were given $600.00 stipends to attend a program at ____________. I was given nothing." "There is
subtle discrimination as a faculty through other’s choice of words and
examples; the refusal of women’s requests for space, equipment, or release
time." "I’ve been
punished in various ways by my department for being a feminist. These include
lack of graduate student support, being closed out of decision making (when
possible) and being treated. disrespectfully." 3. Respect
and Recognition Although 83 percent of respondents feel
welcomed and valued in their department, there were many comments regarding a
lack of respect and recognition for the contributions women and faculty of
color are making. There seems to be a lack of recognition of the extra
assignments which are often given when you are the only, or one of few, women
or people of color in your department, school, campus etc. Other comments
pointed to a general lack of respect on the part of their colleagues and
students in their departments: "I have
been consistently rated lower than the other faculty members in teaching,
service, and research despite carrying heavier teaching loads, usually several
times more graduate students, better teaching evaluations. I have far more
service to the profession both nationally and locally, university, college,
department and college committee assignments, and appointments by the governor
and the city council to citizen committees which none of my male colleagues
have. I can only conclude that my efforts are not considered of equal
value." "There was
a tendency to undervalue the kinds of things I often had to do.’ committee
assignments, student advising and teaching courses outside my area of
expertise." "I have
been made peripheral to our Ph.D. program and overloaded with minority student
responsibilities." "It is
clear I was hired as a token black." "I have been
yelled and sworn at in faculty meetings with the words "F--k you (my
name)." No one else is treated this way. "My
colleagues called me by another woman’s name for years." "People
treat me with the "in visible syndrome," they pretend to listen to
what I have to say at faculty meetings but really don’t." "As the
only female faculty member in the department, I am not privy to some of the
informal communication." "My
graduate assistant told me he did not want to work with a woman. Later, he
misplaced the final exams from my class. " "I have
had explicit references made to my gender and race in course evaluations. There
have been numerous instances." 4. Sexual
Harassment Sexual harassment is one of the most potent
forms of lack of respect. Nearly a fourth of faculty women have experienced
harassment. Indeed, more faculty members reported sexual harassment as a
faculty member (21% overall, 24% of the women, 9% of the men) than as students
(19%). The following incidents were experienced as faculty members: "A prestigious
senior faculty member put his hand on my thigh during a faculty seminar and
kept whispering in my ear. ‘What are you doing here? You should be home
f—-king.’ I felt utterly paralyzed and my colleagues who saw it going on did
nothing. Later they asked me why I hadn’t done anything! I was untenured at the
time." "A senior
faculty member offered me a prestigious appointment in return for sex." "Consistent
and regular approaches were made by a faculty member in another department in
our building including a physical assault." "At one
department I worked in the chair reportedly made passes and asked for sexual
favors." "I was
physically abused by a visiting faculty member." "At a
faculty search committee meeting, a male faculty member stated that what we
needed to liven up these meetings was to show pornographic movies. There ensued
a discussion of good porno flicks. I was very uncomfortable as well as
embarrassed." "One male
faculty member thought it was cute to use as a greeting "How’s your sex
life."" "I
experienced serious sexual harassment (calls and letters) from a colleague at
another institution in our geographic area." 5. Isolation Isolation in their job is a concern of 36
percent of the respondents (36 percent of the women and 36 percent of the men).
Forty-one percent (4 1%) of the people of color feel isolated. The three major reasons given for feelings
of isolation are that they work in a field peripheral to planning (16%), that
there aren’t enough people to relate to in the community (14%), and that they
have nothing in common with their colleagues (11%). 6. Mentoring Advice and support is important at all
stages of career development. When asked if the department encourages senior
faculty to mentor junior women and people of color, 66 percent said no, 29
percent said yes, and 4 percent didn’t know. Over two-thirds (68%) of the women
said that there isn’t encouragement for mentoring while 55 percent of
the males said there is. Several commented that, although there was a
departmental policy encouraging mentoring, it did not really exist in practice. Two-thirds indicate that there has been a
special mentor in their career. Not surprising considering the ratio of male to
female faculty, 50 percent indicate their mentor was male. Only 39
percent of the mentors were planning faculty. While only 14 percent indicated
that it has been detrimental to their career to not have had a mentor, quite a
number of respondents mentioned incidents of discrimination and lack of support
they experienced as they worked on their planning degrees: "The lack
of minority faculty as mentors and students creates an atmosphere of
alienation. Faculty seem to expect the worst." "As a
student with a 4.0 average, I was told by a professor in charge of an awards
program he wouldn’t recommend me for an honor society because it was "oil
men" and it "wouldn’t seem right."" "As a
student I felt there were lower expectations for me, I was passed over for
fellowships, there were faculty members who had to be persuaded to serve on my
committee." "There was
differential treatment of me by faculty on issues related to post-Ph.D.
placement." "I was a
graduate student as a faculty wife. 1 was never considered for scholarships or teaching
assistantships even though I had an excellent grade point average, therefore, I
never had a mailbox or got any of the announcements or information about things
going on in the department." "As a
student at _____________ I was
never aided in getting a job or supported by fellowships although less good
students were supported. Although 1 am probably the most successful; of my
classmates, 1 had a hard time originally getting into the Ph.D. program and got
no support while I was in it." "As a
graduate student in a prestigious planning program, I was told to brush up on
my secretarial skills." "Efforts
to have senior faculty mentor junior faculty have not been very
successful." 7. Fringe
Benefits Issues related to family life are also
important. Several of the respondents indicated they were a "trailing
spouse" to a partner who himself/herself was an academic. Others indicated
they had a "trailing partner." For these faculty, programs which
value part-time workers and/or provide help in partner employment are very
helpful. Over a third of the respondents indicate that part-time faculty aren’t
eligible for faculty development while another 37 percent don’t know if
part-time faculty are eligible. Sixty-three percent indicated that their
institution does not have a trailing partners program to help with employment.
Nearly a third indicated that two people (spouse/partner) are not permitted to
share a single tenure track faculty appointment while 60 percent didn’t know. Issues related to child rearing were the most
mentioned as potentially problematic to faculty. Thirty-nine percent of the
institutions do not provide a parental leave program for new parents.
Thirty-six percent of the faculty respondents did not know if it existed or
not. A child care center for faculty and staff is available for 54 percent but
not for 36 percent of the respondents. Respondents were asked which fringe
benefits would/could be helpful to them in their careers:
Curriculum Current planning curricula do not have enough
material on race, gender, and disability according to 70 percent or more of the
respondents. Material concerning international issues is felt to be sufficient
by 46 percent and insufficient by 43 percent. Asked whether they include materials about these
subjects, 84 percent indicate they include materials about race (85% of the
women, 82% of the men, and 94% of people of color) and 86 percent include
material about gender (88% of the women, 73% of the men, and 88% of the people
of color). Only 40 percent indicate they include
material about disability while 71 percent include material about international
issues. Preferential Treatment Respondents were asked whether or not
retirements among planning faculty during the next 10 years would increase
opportunities in the field for women and people of color. Seventy-six percent
think opportunities will increase for women to enter planning in academia, 57
percent think opportunities for people of color will increase, 46 percent think
opportunities will increase for non U.S. citizen faculty, and 33 percent said
opportunities will increase for other. Twenty-six percent think that women are
receiving preferential treatment in hiring done by schools of planning, while
41 percent feel that is not the case. Twenty—nine percent feel that people of
color are receiving preferential treatment in hiring
while 34 percent do not. Only 10 percent feel people from other countries are
receiving preferential treatment in hiring by schools of planning while 43
percent feel that is not the case. SURVEY RESULTS: DEPARTMENT CHAIRS One hundred and twenty-one chair surveys
were sent out, representing alt schools listed as ACSP schools in the back of
the ACSP Guide to Graduate Education, 1988. Seventy-three (60.3%) were
returned. In general, the department chairs felt their institutional and
departmental policies were working to promote the inclusion of women and
faculty of color. Institutional Policies Thirty-seven (51%) indicated that
institutional policies existed which require women and people of color be given
preference in future hiring. Thirty-three (45%) reported that set aside funds
exist at their school for the recruitment of faculty of color and women. Almost
all departments are required to report offers and hires by sex and race.
However, only twenty-two (30.6%) reported that they have to report renewals and
non renewals of contracts by race and gender and the percentage was
approximately the same for reporting of dismissals or resignations by race or
gender. Less than half the chairs indicated that
there are written institutional guidelines to encourage equity (47.2%) and
about a third indicated such guidelines were distributed to faculty (34.7%). Less than half of the chairs reported that
they knew that their institutions were analyzing academic promotions by
race/sex (45.8%), analyzing salary inequities by race/sex (30.6%), or acting to
correct salary inequities by race/sex (47.2%). Although the majority knew if
their school provided child care services for faculty (56.9% said yes, 3 1.9%
said no), less than half were aware of other benefit issues. Most disturbing, were the percentages of
chairs who reported they did not know the answers to these questions since they
are often of concern to and/or asked about by prospective/current junior
faculty who are often balancing a dual career, child rearing relationship in
their personal life. The table below reports those percentages:
* these answers collapse several responses 1Trailing partners programs were reported to
exist at their schools by only thirteen (18%) of respondents and fifteen (20%) reported
that two people could share a tenure track position. Departmental Policies 1. Recruitment In recruiting candidates to apply for
faculty vacancies, nearly two-thirds of the chairs (61.1%) reported that they
advertised in channels directed towards women and faculty of color, and they
sought help from appropriate special interest groups. Sixty-three (87.5%)
indicated they direct their search committees to assure that women and
candidates of color are identified and recruited. 2. Mentoring Half of the chairs report that they
encourage senior faculty to mentor junior faculty. 3. Department resources and work loads The majority of chairs felt they were doing
a good job of equitably distributing departmental workloads and resources.
Their answers paralleled the faculty responses (page 13). DO YOU FEEL THERE IS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE FOLLOWING IN YOUR DEPARTMENT?* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||