Gerdes, 1999. Data source: ACE, 1991; CUPA, 1998.

Stetson lags behind these national statistics. Currently, every academic dean and vice president is male. Women are not just underrepresented among Stetson’s decision-makers, at the highest levels they are non-existent. Tables 18-19  reveal uneven progress over the past decade in the numbers of women who have served as academic and administrative officers. Administrative restructuring in Business, Music, and Arts & Sciences during the 90s created associate dean positions, a few of which have been occupied by women.

While a person’s commitment to gender equity and understanding of women’s issues is more important than his or her gender, we send a powerful message to our students (the majority of whom are women) about women in the workforce when they see that all of our highest-level academic and administrative positions are occupied by men. We have made better progress in appointing women to chair departments (Table 20, Tables 21-22). Yet, that progress can be uneven. The number of women chairs in the College of Arts & Sciences reached a high point (of 5) in 1995-96. Since then, that number has declined. In 1999-2000, two women will serve as chairs in the School of Business.

As Table 16 showed, while equal numbers of men and women are appointed to exempt positions, the salary discrepancy between men and women (women make 78% of what men make) indicate that women occupy lower-level positions within this category. Anecdotal evidence suggests that persons in the exempt category who are not deans, vice-presidents, or directors may or may not be granted "comp time" for hours worked beyond the regular 40-hour week. This issue should be studied further, to ensure that lower level exempt employees are not expected to work additional hours without appropriate compensation.

Tenure and Promotion
In the Spring of 1998, the Faculty Senate Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee reviewed tenure and promotion decisions from 1994-95 to 1997-98. While the Committee found that "despite persistent good-faith efforts by participants to maintain consistency of standards in the tenure and promotion process, some inconsistent outcomes in promotion decisions do appear to have resulted in the time period 94-98." While the review was "sparked in part by the perception of some faculty members that women and minorities were being denied promotion while men with apparently similar records were being promoted," the committee "found no direct evidence of bias against women or minorities in either the statistical analysis or in the written record." It did, however, stress that equity in the tenure and promotion process requires that all participants be aware of the possibility of systemic bias in the process.

The Committee looked at data for the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business, the School of Music, and the Library. Because no applications for tenure or promotion were denied in the School of Music or in the Library, that data is omitted from this discussion. The Committee reported that during this period in the School of Business, one male had been denied tenure and (thus) promotion to associate professor, and two had been denied promotion to full professor. One male who had previously been tenured but denied promotion reapplied for promotion and was successful. All the women who had applied for tenure and/or promotion were successful.

The Committee reported the Business School statistics as follows:

Tenure: 2/2 females = 100%
2/3 males = 67%
To Assoc.: 2/2 females = 100%
3/4 males = 75%
To Full: 1/1 female = 100%
2/4 males = 50%

In the College of Arts and Sciences, 18 women (100% of those applying) were tenured; 14 of those 18 were also promoted. During the same period, 15 men applied for tenure and promotion; 3 of these men were denied tenure, and one who was tenured was denied promotion (he successfully reapplied the following year). Two out of three women were promoted to full professor, and six of seven men were so promoted.

The Committee reported the Arts & Sciences data as follows:

Tenure: 18/18 females = 100%
12/15 males = 80%
To Assoc.: 14/18 females = 78%
12/16 males = 75%
To Full: 2/3 females = 67%
6/7 males = 86%

The Committee’s interpretation of this data was that the outcomes themselves do not show clear evidence of systematic discrimination against women or members of historically underrepresented ethnic/"racial" groups. It felt that the sample was too small to draw well-founded conclusions on these forms of bias. It did note, however, inconsistencies and differing expectations among schools and departments. It noted as well that standards seem to have been imposed in relation to other applicants in a particular year, rather than in relation to a clear set of criteria. It did not have access to files that would have enabled it to analyze how members of the same department have historically evaluated male and female members in a particular unit.

Even if no definitive conclusions can be drawn about gender or racial bias, we feel that it is important to point out that during the period in question (at least in the College of Arts & Sciences) women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, while men were more likely to be denied tenure (and thus, by default, promotion). In short, there were differences in outcomes that might correlate with gender—even if there is no evidence of overt discrimination. If the men who were not tenured are removed from the numbers not promoted to associate professor, only one man out of 13 was tenured and not promoted: 92% of men who were tenured were promoted to associate professor. Among women who were tenured, 78% were promoted to associate professor. Half of the women who were not promoted were ALANA. Five ALANA women came up for tenure and promotion in the College of Arts and Sciences during this period: two received tenure and promotion; one was tenured and was promoted on appeal; two were tenured and denied promotion.

It is not the position of the Women’s Council that this outcome is the direct result of conscious discriminatory attitudes or practices. We do, however, believe that these outcomes do not rule out the possibility of subtle forms of discrimination that extend far beyond the tenure and promotion process itself. Moreover, ALANA women--particularly ALANA women in departments or divisions with few women or ALANA faculty--face challenges, pressures, and obstacles that white faculty (male or female) do not. If we apply the MIT standard and examine overall patterns rather than individual outcomes (which, as the MIT study notes, can always "be explained"), there seem to be grounds not only for tracking tenure and promotion outcomes by gender and race but to become more alert as a community to the ways in which the campus culture does not support ALANA women as well as it might.

While staff are not awarded tenure, they can and should be promoted, when possible, to increasingly responsible positions. As the 1998 Report on the Women’s Workshop suggests, more attention needs to be paid to the professional development opportunities available for staff. Given the few numbers of women in the higher paying salaried positions, it makes sense for the institution to identify and support female employees with managerial potential.

Honors, Awards, and Recognitions
Tables 23-26 show that the university’s highest recognitions and rewards for faculty have been bestowed, in the main, on men. However, women faculty have secured funds from Stetson to support their research activity in numbers that correspond to the percentage of women on the faculty. Table 23 provides an overview.

*from 1975-79, 4% (n=1) of honorary degree recipients were women; from 1980-84, 6% (n=2) of the recipients were women; and from
1985-89, 10% (n=2) were women.

Table 24 indicates that from 1989-99 women received 35% of the full summer grants and 37% of the half grants. But from 1990-94, only one woman (8% of total) received a Hand Award for Excellence in Research; from 1995-99, only two women (15% of total) were so honored. Since the inception of the Hand Awards, 88% of the recipients have been male.

The McEniry Award for Excellence in Teaching has not been awarded to women very frequently either. Indeed, since the inception of the award, 84% of the recipients have been male. However, the number of women who have received this honor in the past four years equals the number of women who received it over the previous 20 years.

From 1990-93, women held less than 10% of the endowed chairs. From 1993-1998, that percentage grew to 20-25%, but in 1998, it fell to 12%. Between 1975-1989, women received fewer than 10% of Stetson’s honorary degrees. That percentage grew markedly between 1990-94, to slightly less than 40%. Since 1995, however, it has fallen to 20% (Tables 25 and 26).

Staff awards are made annually by the Quality of Service Council. A systematic gender analysis has not been conducted on these awards, but they appear to go to men and women in numbers that correspond more exactly to the numbers of men and women on the staff.
 

proceed to the next section of the report
return to the table of contents