Structural Change
The previous section focuses on the obstacles and challenges women
face as women within the existing structure of the contemporary
university. But, as many feminist writers have noted, many women’s (and
some men’s) vision of change is more extensive and profound. It’s one thing
to consider the ways that subtle forms of discrimination work to women’s
disadvantage: to neutralize the effects of that discrimination, however,
is not necessarily to change the deep structure of the institution. Some
would go even further, to call attention to the fact that many of the institutional
structures we take for granted were developed when the vast majority of
faculty members and administrators were men, and when the success of those
men was made possible by the support they received from wives who worked
inside the home.
As Ruth Rosen writes, impressive statistical change in the numbers of
women now employed in the professoriate can "mask the fact that we [women]
have not yet gained the power to define the terms of our participation"
(The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1999). What would it mean for
women to define the terms of our participation in academic life? It might
mean that an inflexible tenure review cycle would not coincide with women’s
prime childbearing years. It might mean that attempts to combine work and
family would not be dismissed as signs of a lack of commitment to a research
or teaching career. It might mean that maternity would not be treated as
though it were a short-term disability.
The point is that while neutralizing the effects of subtle discrimination
is important, it is equally important to think creatively about the ways
in which some of the deep structures of academia might be changed. In Rosen’s
words,
We need to remind administrators that colleges and universities have
not embraced what a number of private corporations already accept as conventional
wisdom: that productive members of the work force need to know that their
families are not sacrificed to the exigencies of work. . . Then we should
insist that all institutions of higher education view not just men, but
also women, as the norm in the professoriate. . . . For a long time, it
was perfectly reasonable to organize colleges and universities around the
male experience. Now that there is a critical mass of women, we need to
reconsider the lack of child care, the tenure cycle, the publishing expectations,
and the other "normal" patterns that often seem to be cast in concrete.
For those still afraid of the f-word, here is the essence of feminism:
to consider economic, social, cultural, and institutional arrangements
as though women mattered.
proceed
to the next section of the report
return to the
table of contents