1

Subtle Discrimination

Objective Students will learn about subtle discrimination, its negative effects on the careers of women in physics and astronomy, and strategies to eradicate it from the workplace and classroom. Introduction A glance around most science classrooms and conferences reveal a great disparity in women’s participation in science, especially physics. Educators and scientists are working to understand and correct the underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. Dr. Michal Lipson, a physicist specializing in optics research, suggests that one deterrent to women is subtle discrimination experienced in school and the workplace. This lesson introduces the concept of subtle discrimination, as well as the measures taken by the scientific community to address it. Instructions In preparation for class, students will read four documents and complete a worksheet based on them. The class period will begin with a video lecture on subtle discrimination (approximately 22 minutes in length), followed by a group discussion drawing on the readings and video. In Class Time 45 minutes Prep Time 15 minutes Materials

A/V equipment Photocopies of pre-class worksheet and assigned readings

Required Readings

Meg Urry, “Diminished by Discrimination We Scarcely See,” The Washington Post, Sunday, February 6, 2005.

Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy Equity Now: The Pasadena Recommendations for Gender Equality in Astronomy Marcella Bombardieri, “Summers’ Remarks on Women Draw Fire,” The Boston Globe,

January 17, 2005. Video Dr. Michal Lipson, 2010 MacArthur Fellow and Optical Society of America Fellow, speaks on "Subtle Discrimination" at the 2010 Minorities and Women in the Optical Society of America event. (42 minute-long video; lecture ends at 22:35) http://www.osa.org/media_library/searchresultsvideo.aspx?Id=783711525001 Pre-Class Worksheet

1. What is subtle discrimination? 2. Give 2 examples of how Dr. Urry experienced subtle discrimination in her career. 3. What were the motivations for issuing the Baltimore Charter and the Pasadena

Recommendations?

Prepared by the Center for History of Physics at AIP

2

4. What are some of the professional challenges women face, as described in the Baltimore Charter?

5. Who are the signatories of the Baltimore Charter? 6. Describe 2 recommendations for changing the dominant scientific culture in Baltimore

Charter and the Pasadena Recommendations. 7. What are the 3 explanations Summers’ offers for women’s underrepresentation in science?

In Class Discussion Questions

1. What is subtle discrimination? 2. What impressed or surprised you most about Dr. Lipson and Dr. Urry’s testimonies? 3. What strategies do you think would be most effective in eradicating subtle discrimination? 4. Who is responsible for implementing strategies to change the culture of science? 5. Why might scientists be resistant to changing the dominant culture? 6. After learning about person accounts of subtle discrimination and reading the Baltimore

Charter and Pasadena Recommendations, what would you say to Larry Summers after his controversial remarks on women in science?

7. Can you name any historical figures who also faced these kinds of discriminations? 8. Have you ever experienced or witnessed subtle discrimination in class? How can we

prevent this from happening?

Prepared by the Center for History of Physics at AIP

Diminished By Discrimination We Scarcely See By Meg Urry The Washington Post, Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page B04

I came of age when discrimination was a thing of the past, or so I thought. True, there were not

many women in my college physics classes, but I figured that was just a matter of time. And

although we had all heard horror stories about women being excluded because they were women,

those predated the feminist movement of the '60s and the anti-discrimination legislation of the

'70s. None of my peers or professors in the early '80s would ever have said out loud, "Women

can't do physics as well as men" even though some think it and Harvard University President

Larry Summers suggested as much last month.

Still, I can remember a few uncomfortable moments. As a physics grad student 25 years ago at

Johns Hopkins University, I once found pictures of naked men on my desk. As one of the few

women at professional meetings when I was a grad student, and then a postdoc, the attention I

got from male colleagues wasn't always about science. One professor used to address the

graduate quantum mechanics class as "gentlemen and Meg." So I knew that my gender identified

me. I just didn't think the distinction amounted to discrimination. It wasn't until a few years ago,

after I became a tenured professor at one of the world's top universities, that I finally realized it

was discrimination all along.

That's the thing: Discrimination isn't a thunderbolt, it isn't an abrupt slap in the face. It's the slow

drumbeat of being underappreciated, feeling uncomfortable and encountering roadblocks along

the path to success. These subtle distinctions help make women feel out of place.

And some are not so subtle! When I was a young astrophysics postdoc at MIT (and the only

female postdoc), one weekly colloquium speaker began his talk about the importance of high

resolution in optical imaging with a badly out-of-focus slide. As he sharpened the focus to make

his point, a topless woman in a grass skirt on a Hawaiian beach gradually appeared. The male

students laughed, while the one other woman in the room shared an appalled look with me before

standing up and walking out.

No one ever told this speaker that his choice of slide was inappropriate. I intended to talk to him

afterward, but I left the talk after about 20 minutes, having realized that I hadn't heard a word

he'd said. Ironically, a few years later the speaker won the Tinsley prize from the American

Astronomical Society, named in honor of a brilliant late-20th-century woman astronomer at Yale

University.

I loved MIT, but it could be a harsh environment for women 20 years ago. (It's changed a lot!) I

remember two professors having a dinner conversation in my presence about the inferiority of

women scientists who had been hired because of affirmative action. (When I mentioned this to

the man who'd hired me, he hastened to assure me that it didn't apply to me.) My ambition to be

an academic was sometimes met with encouragement, but one male professor told me, "Oh, we

would never hire you." And discouragement always makes a bigger impression than

encouragement.

During my postdoc career, I started wondering why women weren't getting hired into faculty

positions. I'd been told, from graduate school on, that I'd have no trouble getting ahead: I was a

woman, people would come after me. When they didn't, I subliminally absorbed the idea that I

wasn't good enough. But was it possible that all the women getting physics and astronomy

degrees from top institutions weren't good enough? I saw precious few being hired into faculty

jobs.

For some reason, I hung in there. Maybe it was the strong support from my parents and from the

fellow physicist I married, who took on half (and sometimes more than half) the responsibilities

of child rearing. He doesn't "help" -- we share. Our two daughters, Amelia (nearly 14) and

Sophia (11) carry both our last names, as their middle and last names, but in alternate order. We

made it equal, start to finish.

But work was never equal. When I told my thesis adviser I was pregnant, he said, "So, you want

to have it all!" I smiled but later thought, Wait a minute, isn't that what all you guys have? Why

is it "all" for me and "normal" for you?

Over the years, I saw women in the scientific world treated badly, being marginalized,

mistreated, harassed. One woman manager I know was second-guessed, unlike any of the male

managers, and when she pointed this out, was told she was depressed and should get professional

help. Another told me it had become routine for her to cry while driving home from work. Every

woman I know has had her suggestions ignored in a mainly male meeting, only to hear the same

idea praised when later raised by a man.

Hey, bad things happen. But feeling out of place over and over again eventually soaks in; it did

for me. About a decade ago, frustrated and alienated, I approached the director of my institution

to ask about special management training for women: Maybe there were tips that would help me

navigate the foreign waters in which I found myself. He didn't seem to understand. I said, "You

know, it's like being the red fish in the sea of blue fish -- I want to understand the blue-fish

rules." "Oh," he answered. "Maybe it's not your lack of training, Meg, maybe it's just your

difficult personality."

After enough of this kind of thing, women feel beaten down and underappreciated, or worse,

they feel incapable. That's the most insidious thing. After years of being passed over, ignored,

and insulted, we start wondering what we are doing wrong. Maybe if I had made the suggestion

differently, it would have been heard. Maybe if I lowered my voice and spoke more slowly, I

would get more respect. Maybe -- even though I published many papers, did seminal work in

more than one field, brought in big grants, had successful students and postdocs -- maybe I

wasn't a good enough scientist.

It was easier to see what was happening to other women than to me. My good friend Anne

Kinney (now "Director of the Universe" at NASA -- how's that for a title?) said in an after-dinner

speech to a conference on women in astronomy that she'd never had a five-year plan because

there were no women five years ahead of her. Her speech was very funny and I laughed a lot, but

I didn't think it applied to me, exactly. Weeks later, it dawned on me that I'd never had a five-

year plan either -- and for much the same reason.

I watched women around me, especially young women, who were smart and keen to work hard,

but who, after a few years in grad school or after a discouraging spell as a postdoc, decided

maybe they weren't cut out for science, or maybe they would find a non-academic job, or maybe

they'd get married and have a family rather than a research career.

I have no problem with any of these choices. What troubles me, though, is that I rarely saw men

making them, especially the choice to stay home with kids. I think some women use "family" as

an excuse to leave science when science actually drives them away.

This is a huge loss for our country -- these women PhDs are some of the best scientists we train.

We need their talent.

In my field, physics and astronomy, women still make up a small percentage of active scientists -

- about 7 percent of physics faculty are female and about 12 percent of astronomers. Those

percentages are increasing, but slowly. So I grew up with almost no women professors. When I

first heard of Beatrice Tinsley -- who came to the United States in 1964 from New Zealand with

a master's in physics, created an entire sub-field of astronomy, finished her thesis under adverse

circumstances and by all accounts was an incredible person -- I felt the kind of relief that a child

raised by wolves must feel when she first sees a human being.

Physics has fewer women than other scientific disciplines. I think it may be because physics is

more hierarchical, more aggressive than other areas. ("Combat physics," a friend of mine calls

it.) Physicists act as if they are better and smarter than everyone else. The standard for excellence

is to be the best in the world -- and that seems pretty boastful to polite girls raised not to brag.

When I expressed ambition, though, I sometimes got put back down. I suggested I was ready to

be tenured -- "Be patient, Meg, it's too early for you." I mentioned I was interested in a high-

level national committee -- "Isn't that a bit ambitious, Meg?" I expressed interest in a promotion:

"You're not a leader, no one would follow you."

Social scientists like Virginia Valian of Hunter College have developed a lot of evidence

showing that women and men are treated and evaluated differently. Yet physicists reject the

possibility that scientists are not objective. I learned about the lack of objectivity the hard way --

through experience.

On hiring committees or tenure and promotion committees I served on, we'd evaluate men and

women, and somehow the women seldom came out on top. They were "good," even "very good"

but the men were always better. Some of this was caused by letters of recommendation. Every

woman was always compared to other women, as if every woman scientist is female first and a

scientist second. Also, women's letters were somehow more pedestrian -- the candidate "works

hard" and she "has a nice personality," "gets along well with others." Once you see the patterns,

you realize that these evaluations reflect people's expectations more than reality.

As I got more educated about the abundant social science research, I got more frustrated: The

answers were there, if only physicists and astronomers would read the literature. So I made it

easier. I organized conferences to talk about these issues. We held that first conference on

Women in Astronomy in 1992 and wrote the Baltimore Charter, a kind of manifesto for change

(www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/WiA/BaltoCharter.html). In 2003 we organized a second meeting,

from which the Pasadena Recommendations have just been produced (www.aas.org/cswa/).

It's been slow, but we've made progress, and we're making a difference. More young women are

flocking to science every year. It's a great life, after all, doing something you love, having

control of your time, being paid pretty well.

And, however slowly, the barriers women face are being abraded. The American Astronomical

Society and American Physical Society, my professional organizations, have been immensely

forward thinking. As for me, Yale hired me with tenure four years ago and treats me

wonderfully. My science has never been better. I bet some people say I got this job because I'm

female. But now that I've been around awhile, I'm finally able to say, confidently, that I'm really

great at this job. I'm lucky to be here at Yale, yes, but even more, they are really lucky to have

me. The doubt is finally going away.

Author's e-mail: meg.urry@yale.edu

Meg Urry is a professor of physics and the director of the Yale Center for Astronomy and

Astrophysics.

The Baltimore Charter for Women In

Astronomy

``Women Hold up Half the Sky'' -- Chinese saying

Preamble

We hold as fundamental that:

Women and men are equally capable of doing excellent science.

Diversity contributes to, rather than conflicts with, excellence in science.

Current recruitment, training, evaluation and award systems often prevent the equal

participation of women.

Formal and informal mechanisms that are effectively discriminatory are unlikely to

change by themselves. Both thought and action are necessary to ensure equal

participation for all.

Increasing the number of women in astronomy will improve the professional

environment and improving the environment will increase the number of women.

This Charter addresses the need to develop a scientific culture within which both women and

men can work effectively and within which all can have satisfying and rewarding careers. Our

focus is on women but actions taken to improve the situation of women in astronomy should be

applied aggressively to those minorities even more disenfranchised.

Rationale

Astronomy has a long and honorable tradition of participation by women, who have made many

significant and highly creative contributions to the field. Approximately 15% of astronomers

worldwide are women but there is wide geographical diversity, with some countries having none

and others having more than 50%. This shows that scientific careers are strongly affected by

social and cultural factors, and are not determined solely by ability.

The search for excellence which unites all scientists can be maintained and enhanced by

increasing the diversity of its practitioners. Great discoveries have always occurred in times of

cross-cultural enrichment: along trade routes, in periods of geographical exploration, among

immigrants and multinationals. The introduction of new approaches frequently results in new

breakthroughs. Achieving such diversity requires revised, not lesser, criteria for judging

excellence, free of culturally-based perceptions of talent and promise.

A review of available information on the relative numbers and career histories of women and

men in science reveals extensive discrimination. Access to the profession -- graduate education,

hiring, promotion, funding -- is not always independent of gender. Unequal treatment of women

in the laboratory, the lecture hall and the observatory, more subtle but at least as important as

overt discrimination, creates a chilly climate which discourages and distresses women, alienates

them from the field, and ultimately damages the profession.

Existing inequities can be eliminated only partially by legal stricture or they would not continue

today. Improving the situation requires awareness of the very real barriers women currently face,

including sexual stereotyping, opportunity and pay differentials, inappropriate time limits on

advancement, overcritical scrutiny and sexual harassment. Sexual harassment, ranging from an

uncomfortable work environment to unwanted sexual attention to overt extortion of sexual

favors, can force confrontation between junior astronomers and older, better established

colleagues who can strongly influence career advancement; it diverts attention from science to

sex, places an undue burden on the harassed, and damages their self-esteem.

The entire profession must assume the immediate and ongoing responsibility for implementing

strategies that will enable women to succeed within the existing structures of astronomy and

allow the desired acceptance of diversity to develop fully.

Recommendations

1. Significant advances for women have been made possible by affirmative action.

Affirmative action involves the establishment of serious goals, not rigid quotas, for

achieving diversity in all aspects of the profession, including hiring, invited talks,

committees, and awards.

(a) Standards for candidates should be established and publicized in advance. Criteria that

are culturally based or otherwise extraneous to performance or the pursuit of scientific

excellence should not be applied.

(b) Women should participate in the selection process. If insufficient numbers of women

are available at particular institutions, outside scientists can be invited to assist. Men must

share fully the responsibility for implementing affirmative action, as they hold the

majority of leadership positions.

(c) The selection of women should reflect on average their numbers in the appropriate

pool of candidates and normally at least one woman should be on the short list for any

position, paid or honorific. When women are underrepresented in the pool, their numbers

should be increased by active and energetic recruitment.

(d) Demographic information for each astronomical organization should be widely

publicized. If the goals for affirmative action are not achieved, the reasons must be

determined.

2. The criteria used in hiring, assignment, promotion and awards should be broadened in

recognition of different pacing of careers, care of older and younger family members, and

demands of dual-career households. Provision for day care facilities, family leave, time

off and re-entry will instantly improve women's access to an astronomical career and is of

equal benefit to men.

3. Strong action must be taken to end sexual harassment. Education and awareness

programs are standard in U.S. government and industry and should be adopted by the

astronomical community. Each institution should appoint one or more women to receive

complaints about sexual harassment and to participate in the formal review process.

Action against those who perpetrate sexual harassment should be swift and substantial.

4. Gender-neutral language and illustrations are important in the formation of expectations,

both by those in power and those seeking entrance to the profession. Documents and

discussions should be sensitive to bias that favors any one gender, race, sexual

orientation, life style, or work style. Those who represent astronomy to the public should

be particularly aware of the power of language and images which, intentionally or

unintentionally, reflect on astronomy as a profession.

5. Physical safety is of concern to all astronomers and of particular significance to women,

who often feel more vulnerable when working alone on campus or in observatories. This

issue must be addressed by those in a position to affect security, making it possible for

everyone to work at any hour, in any place, as necessary.

Call to Action

Improving the situation of women in astronomy will benefit, and is the responsibility of,

astronomers at all levels. Department heads, observatory directors, policy committee chairs, and

funding agency officials have a particular responsibility to facilitate the full participation of

women: to nurture new talent, to ensure the effectiveness of teaching, and to examine and correct

patterns of inequity. The profession should be responsible for regular review and assessment of

the status of women in astronomy, in pursuit of equality and fairness for all.

A rational and collegial environment which allows full expression of intellectual style is

necessary for achieving excellence in scientific research. Women should not have to be clones of

male astronomers in order to participate in the mainstream of astronomical research. Women

want and deserve the same opportunity as their male colleagues to achieve excellence in

astronomy.

Signatories

Elise Albert, Ron Allen, Martha Anderson, Martina Belz Arndt, Neta Bahcall, Nancyjane Bailey,

Suchitra Balachandran, Vicki Balzano, Stefi Baum, Barbara Becker, Lynne Billard, Karen S.

Bjorkman, Cindy Blaha, Elizabeth Bonar, Peter Boyce, Susan W. Boynton, Mimi Bredeson,

Margaret Burbidge, Claude Canizares, Nancy Chanover, Grace Chen, Jennifer Christensen,

Frederick R. Chromey, Geoffrey C. Clayton, France A. Cordova, Anne Cowley, Laura Danly,

Doris Daou, Doug Duncan, Joann Eisberg, Debra Elmegreen, Bruce Elmegreen, Michael

Eracleous, Sheryl Falgout, Deborah C. Fort, Pru Foster, Diane L. Fowlkes, Linda French,

Riccardo Giacconi, Diane Gilmore, Sherri D. Godlin, Daniel Golombek, Anne Gonnella,

Shireen Gonzaga, Eva K. Grebel, Noreen Grice, Elizabeth Griffin, Heidi B. Hammel, Robert J.

Hanisch, Helen M. Hart, Hashima Hasan, Isabel Hawkins, Tim Heckman, Charlene Heisler,

Lori K. Herold, James E. Hesser, Susan Hoban, Jane Holmquist, Nancy Houk, Sethanne

Howard, Svetlana Hubrig, Roberta Humphreys, Todd Hurt, Judith A. Irwin, Deepa R. Iyengar,

Vera Izvekova, Helmut Jenkner, Inger Joergensen, Jennifer Johnson, Liana Johnson, Debora M.

Katz-Stone, Laura Kay, Anne Kinney, Denise V. Kitson, Anuradha Koratkar, Ira Kostiuk, Susan

Lamb, Adair Lane, Krista Lawrance, Robin Lerner, Janet Levine, Stephen Levine, Karen Lezon,

Omar Lopez-Cruz, James Lowenthal, Olivia L. Lupie, Julie Lutz, Duccio Macchetto, Sue

Madden, Bianca Mancinelli, Cathy Mansperger, Nathalie Martimbeau, Melissa McGrath, Jaylee

Mead, Kathy Mead, Mike Meakes, Karen J. Meech, Windsor A. Morgan, Jr., Lauretta M. Nagel,

Susan Neff, Joy Nichols-Bohlin, Goetz Oertel, Sally Oey, Angela V. Olinto, Nancy Oliversen,

Samantha Osmer, Nino Panagia, Pat Parker, Judith Perry, Joanna Rankin, Luisa Rebull, Patty

Reeves, Peter Reppert, Mercedes T. Richards, Carmelle Robert, Claudia A. Robinson, Elizabeth

Roettger, Vera Rubin, Laura Ann Ruocco, Penny D. Sackett, Maitrayee Sahi, Londa Schiebinger,

Regina E. Schulte-Ladbeck, Ethan Schreier, Andrea Schweitzer, Anouk A. Shambrook, Lea

Shanley, Robin Shelton, Debra Shepherd, Lisa E. Sherbert, Angela Silverstein, Linda (Dix)

Skidmore, Tatiana Smirnova, Ulysses J. Sofia, Emily Sterner, Sarah Stevens-Rayburn, Peter

Stockman, Susan Stolovy, Alex Storrs, Svetlana Suleymanova, Cindy Taylor, Sheila Tobias, Eline

Tolstoy, Andrea Tuffli, Meg Urry, Paul Vanden Bout, Fabienne van de Rydt, Liese van Zee,

Frances Verter, Stefanie Wachter, William J. Wagner, Nolan R. Walborn, William H. Waller,

Harold A. Weaver, Rachel Webster, Alycia Weinberger, Daryl Weinstein, Barbara Whitney,

Reva K. Williams, Lance Wobus, Sidney Wolff, James P. Wright, Katharine C. Wright, Eric W.

Wyckoff, Emily Xanthopoulos, Sophie Yancopoulos

1

Equity Now:The Pasadena Recommendations for

Gender Equality in Astronomy

This document was endorsed by the American Astronomical Society(AAS) Council on Sunday January 9, 2005, in San Diego, CA. Thiswork is a collaborative effort made by many attendees of the“Women in Astronomy II: Ten Years After” meeting held in June2003 in Pasadena with input and comments from the entireastronomical community. This document was presented to themembers of the AAS Council by the 2003-2005 committee membersof the AAS Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy.Further information on implementing these recommendations maybe found on our website: http://www.aas.org/~cswa

“The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn,but to unlearn.”

-- Gloria Steinem

Guiding Principles

Women and men are equally talented and deserve equal opportunity.

Full participation of men and women will maximize excellence in the field.

The measure of equal opportunity is outcome, i.e., gender equity will havebeen attained when the percentage of women in the next level of advancementequals the percentage in the pool.

Long-term change requires periodic evaluation of progress and consequentaction to address areas where improvement is necessary.

2

Context

In 1972, the AAS established a working group on the status of women inastronomy, and followed in 1978 with the formation of an ad hoc committee onthe status of women. The principal recommendation of the latter group was theappointment of a standing Committee on the Status of Women. This Committeeon the Status of Women was established in June 1979, to monitor the status ofwomen in the field of astronomy and to recommend changes to improve it. In1992, a seminal meeting on Women in Astronomy was held in Baltimore,Maryland. This conference led to the Baltimore Charter for Women inAstronomy, which offered a rationale for and steps toward gender equity inastronomy. The Baltimore Charter was based on input from the astronomicalcommunity, and the American Astronomical Society endorsed its goals inJanuary 1994. In the ensuing decade many institutions recognized that there areimpediments to the success of women in science and have developed strategiesto increase diversity. The Committee is encouraged by the progress that has beenmade but recognizes that major inequalities still exist. Consequently, a secondmeeting on Women in Astronomy was held in Pasadena, California, in June 2003.Participants assessed the progress for women in science, offered insights intocauses of the slower advancement of women, and discussed strategies toaccelerate the achievement of equality.

Approximately one fourth of professional astronomers are women, and the fieldcontinues to attract women and benefit from their participation. However, thedata show that women are still less likely to advance than their male colleagues.Future progress toward parity demands that the field evaluate itself periodicallyand implement changes based on the latest demographic data and the mostsuccessful solutions. Therefore, the Committee, with input from both thePasadena meeting participants and the larger community, offers a new set ofrecommendations for progress. These recommendations emphasize the academicsector because of its unique influence on the future of the field. The Committeeunderstands, however, that these problems are not limited to either academia orastronomy and calls on all scientists to work together toward equality. Finally,the Committee advocates that the strategies developed for the sake ofencouraging gender equality be adapted to address the even sloweradvancement of minority scientists.

This document continues astronomy's proud tradition of community attention towomen's issues and the formation of a consensus set of recommendations.Without continued positive action, progress toward diversity could halt or evenreverse. Together, astronomers can improve the diversity of the community,draw on a broader talent pool, and thus remove impediments to achievingexcellence in science.

3

Major Areas of Concern and Subsequent Recommendations

The following are specific areas of concern and possible recommendations tohelp improve gender equality in these areas through various methods. Theindividual areas include: A. Tenure-Track Hiring, B. Career Advancement andRecognition, C. Institutional Policies, D. Varied Career Paths, E. Cultural Issues,and F. Statistical Information.

A. Tenure-Track Hiring

Traditional hiring practices may work against women as candidates for tenure-track positions in research universities, large national observatories, and scienceinstitutes. Statistics show that the fraction of women in the tenure-track pool hasincreased over the last two decades, but the fraction of women in tenure-trackpositions has not grown commensurately. It is the clear responsibility of researchorganizations to take affirmative steps to ensure that all viable candidates fortenure-track positions are identified and given equal opportunity both for hiringand success. While specifically calling out tenure-track hiring as an area ofimmediate concern, we recognize that the same practices should be applied tohiring for all positions. In this spirit, we make the following recommendations tothese organizations.

Recommendations

1. Ensure that all search committees for tenure-track positions contain two ormore members whose specific task is to advocate for consideration ofcandidates from groups that are underrepresented in astronomy.

2. Require that search committees be informed about what constitutes legaland ethical hiring practices.

3. Actively recruit women to apply for tenure-track positions.

4. Develop policies encouraging flexible means of accommodating dual-careercouples.

5. Require accountability in the hiring process, using appropriate institutionalchannels, so that results are commensurate with the possible candidate pool.

6. If two candidates for the same position have equal qualifications within theuncertainties, the candidate from the underrepresented group should be hired.

4

B. Career Advancement and Recognition

The "classic" career path for a professional astronomer has been a progressionthrough undergraduate and graduate school, a postdoc or two, and then aresearch faculty job at a major university. Statistics indicate that women are lostfrom this "progression" in proportion greater than for men, for a variety ofreasons such as unsupportive work environments, lack of role models, andinsufficient opportunity for recognition of their performance. Recognition oftencomes in the form of professional awards and invited presentations, wherewomen frequently have been underrepresented relative to their achievements.Informal mentoring is easy and widespread for young people who resemblethose already in the field but often is nearly inaccessible to those fromunderrepresented groups. We offer several recommendations to ameliorate thissituation:

Recommendations

1. Academic institutions should provide regular evaluation, mentoring andcareer counseling to young faculty members.

2. Universities and individual departments should set up formal programs totrain mentors for younger students and professionals, with attention paid toboth career and family issues. In addition, the AAS should sponsor periodicspecial sessions or short training programs at the semi-annual generalmeetings. The individual astronomy and physics departments then should takethe responsibility of implementing a mentoring program, so that their morejunior members have a mechanism to acquire support and advice. Specific areasof interest for training and mentoring would include information about rules(both written and unwritten), expectations, networking, and the generaldecision-making process of a particular institution.

3. Ph.D.-granting universities should recognize the potential of graduate-student applicants from institutions that traditionally serve underrepresentedgroups. Departments should develop working relationships with faculty at theseinstitutions, and establish specific mentoring programs for graduate studentswho may undergo "culture shock" upon arrival at a major research university.

5

(B. Career Advancement and Recognition Recommendations – continued)

4. Decisions on advancement should result from an open process, based onspecific criteria that are spelled out in advance. Senior faculty and other seniorpersonnel must provide an environment that enables all junior faculty to have anequal opportunity to succeed and advance in this process.

5 . Organizations and academic institutions should offer women equalopportunity for scientific recognition in the form of awards (AAS awards andothers) and invitations to present invited talks in a variety of circumstances,including AAS meetings, topical professional meetings, and traditionalcolloquia/seminars. Prize nominee pools and invited speaker lists shouldadequately reflect the diversity of the astronomical profession. The institutionsresponsible for selecting awardees and invitees should review periodically theirpolicies and progress in this area, in order to ensure that the achievements ofwomen are being represented fairly.

6. Along with direct contributions to science, criteria for success shouldinclude teaching and other functional terms of employment. Specifically,outreach and education activities are important both for the future of astronomyand in relation to possible career paths; involvement in such activities should besupported and rewarded at all levels, including hiring decisions andperformance evaluations. Paradoxically, individual women sometimes areheavily burdened with committee service in an effort to achieve greater diversity;this additional service also should be recognized in advancement decisions.

7. The responsibility to create institutional changes that promote equity inastronomy lies first and foremost with the senior and more establishedmembers of an institution. However, individuals at a more junior level have astrong interest in such change and should participate as is feasible. In addition,these younger astronomers should not be thwarted by apparent barriers, butshould enthusiastically pursue their own goals and dreams for scientificachievement and career advancement.

6

C. Institutional Policies

Institutions have a responsibility to change the face of our profession, bydeveloping and implementing policies that are friendly to women and thatensure equal access to all benefits and opportunities that will help them advancein their careers. Many institutions have policies that are limited in scope oroutdated. This is particularly important in view of the "tidal wave" of youngwomen currently at the entry level in astronomy; note that more than 50% ofAAS members 18-23 years of age are women, but the fraction of womendecreases systematically at later career stages. Consistent policies that aresupportive of diversity, among institutions that grant degrees in astronomy oremploy astronomers, play a critical role in "leveling the playing field" for womenastronomers.

Recommendations

1. All institutions should establish and promote strong policies and training inthe areas of sexual harassment and general ethics, including clear complaintpaths and accountability, taking care that these policies apply both to permanentemployees and to short-term visitors (e.g., students and visiting observers).

2. Institutions should endorse and implement the Statement on Gender Equityin Academic Science and Engineering signed by the presidents of MIT,Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Michigan, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech inJanuary 2001. The AAS should maintain a public list of institutions andorganizations that endorse this Statement.

3. Members of the departments granting degrees in astronomy or employingastronomers should work proactively with their institutions to establishpolicies that allow all department members access to affordable health andchildcare. This access should not be reserved only for faculty, but be extended tograduate students, post docs, research and administrative staff as well.

4. All job applicants should be made aware of institutional policies andbenefits (e.g., health care, childcare, leave policies, spousal/partner hire policies,spousal/partner job search assistance, and retirement) provided at all levels.

7

D. Varied Career Paths

Many, if not most, professional astronomers in the U.S. are employed inpositions other than tenure-track positions at major research universities.Examples are employment at national or private observatories, NASA centersand contractors, science data centers, colleges that do not grant Ph.D.s,planetaria, industry, or in various roles in science or university management. Thepaths to these roles typically are not well understood, nor are the opportunitiesavailable to develop skills that are useful in these various types of positions.

Recommendations

1. Academic departments should encourage outside training in non-researchfields, such as program/project management or science policy, in order toprepare their students for the possibility of future careers in managing avariety of scientific endeavors. This may include, for example, courses outsidethe academic department or department seminars given by people in variousrelated careers.

2. Educational institutions that are co-located with related industrialemployers, research institutions, or observatories should establish specificprograms that enable students to "cross-train" between the university and theother organizations. Likewise, informal and formal science discussions,mentoring groups, seminars and colloquia, etc. at these professional institutionsshould have an open door policy and encourage student participation.

3. Mentoring programs such as that recommended in the section on "CareerAdvancement and Recognition" should include discussions and explorationsof options outside the traditional faculty progression; astronomy departmentsshould work with their university's career development centers, and with theirown graduates, to provide information about these options to theirundergraduate and graduate students.

8

E. Cultural Issues

Some of the strongest, but most difficult to quantify, reasons that individualsfrom underrepresented groups can feel disadvantaged arise from a mismatchwith the majority "culture" -- i.e., implicit norms and expectations of behavior.Specific recommendations that are made above would go far toward dealingwith some of these issues in terms of policies and practices, but there remains alarge gray area of subtle cultural issues that contribute to theunderrepresentation of women in tenured and other leadership roles. In thewords of Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Science 304, p. 489, 2004): "Women and minoritiesshould not do all the adapting. It is time for society to move toward women, notwomen toward society."

Recommendations

1. Institutions should encourage gender-equity training and make it availableat all levels. This should include discussions of the well-studied effects of subtlediscrimination, unconscious bias, and the accumulation of disadvantage.

2. In an era in which the ability to work within a large team is becomingincreasingly important for scientific success, departments should foster acollaborative and team-oriented approach rather than just the more traditional,competitive scientific culture. Responsibilities and rewards should be sharedequitably in the team environment. It is also expected that such a team should becomposed of diverse members of the department, where appropriate (forexample, men and women, junior and senior faculty, students, etc.).

3. Good communication channels should be maintained and encouragedthroughout academic departments and laboratories, both within peer groupsand spanning traditional hierarchical levels. Department chairs shouldorganize regular opportunities for two-way communication throughout thehierarchy.

4. Institutions should ensure that a career in research is compatible withhaving a family; professional activities (e.g., class and meeting schedules) as wellas employment benefits (e.g., childcare, family leave, etc.) should be developedwith this specific goal in mind.

9

F. Statistical Information

Evidence of the underrepresentation of women in the astronomical communityrelies on insufficient long-term statistical data. Recent studies (e.g., Hoffman inWIA-II proceedings) indicate that there still is a "leaky pipeline" in the road totenure-track positions in astronomy. At present, more than half of the AASmembers in the range of 18-23 years of age are women, and one-third of theastronomy graduate students are women, but women occupy fewer than 15% ofthe astronomy tenure-track positions. Better longitudinal data, specific toastronomy, are needed to assess women's representation and to assess theeffectiveness of remedies. The issue of statistics must be recognized for its centralimportance to understanding the social and cultural forces that shape thecharacteristics of our field.

Recommendations

1. The American Astronomical Society should commission immediately alongitudinal study of young women in astronomy, beginning with those aged18-23 in 2003. A similar group of men should be used as a comparison sample.Both subjects that remain in the field and those that leave the field shouldcontinue to be tracked for the duration of the study. The AAS should commit tocontinue this study for at least 10 years, in order to establish statistics onretention and career paths for this cohort. Professional sociologists, usingaccepted statistical techniques, should carry out this study. One goal of thisstudy would be to measure whether there is differential attrition of women fromthe pipeline and if so, to learn the reasons for it.

2. The AAS should form a “Committee on Statistics” whose main objectivewould be collecting, analyzing and reporting data on the demographics of ourfield. This committee could work closely with the CSWA and other relevant AAScommittees (as well as organizations such as the National Science Foundationand American Institute of Physics (AIP) that conduct their own surveys). Thiscommittee should provide complete and regular access to statistics on items suchas gender balance, the fraction of beginning students who earn their Ph.D., andthe mean time to completion.

3. The above mentioned committee's prime focus should be to examine thedemographic status of the AAS membership and the astronomical communityin a three-fold approach: (a) mining standardized yearly departmental reports(using those currently administered by the AIP) for statistical information, (b)administering and analyzing in depth periodic surveys (every 2 to 3 years but nomore than 5 years between surveys) similar to the STScI/CSWA survey, and (c)giving input to and reporting results from longitudinal studies.

Summers' remarks on women draw fire

By Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2005

CAMBRIDGE -- The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an

uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and

women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also

questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science

and engineering at elite universities.

Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers'

talk, saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or thrown up." Five other

participants reached by the Globe, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the

University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were deeply offended, while four other

attendees said they were not.

Summers said he was only putting forward hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled

for the conference, not expressing his own judgments -- in fact, he said, more research needs to

be done on these issues. The organizer of the conference at the National Bureau of Economic

Research said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist,

not as a Harvard official.

However, the problem of women in academia is one that Summers is confronting in his role as

university president. The percentage of tenured job offers made to women by the university's

Faculty of Arts and Sciences has dropped dramatically since Summers took office, prompting

vigorous complaints from many of Harvard's senior female professors.

Summers has called last year's results, when only four of 32 tenured job offers went to women,

unacceptable and promised to work on the problem. However, some Harvard professors have

questioned his commitment to the issue.

The setting was a two-day conference at the economic research bureau, a group in Cambridge

whose members include economists from all over the country. The conference, on women and

minorities in the science and engineering workforce, was a private, invitation-only event, with

about 50 attendees.

Summers spoke during a working lunch. He declined to provide a tape or transcript of his

remarks, but the description he gave in an interview was generally in keeping with what 10

participants recalled. He said he was synthesizing the scholarship that the organizers had asked

him to discuss, and that in his talk he repeated several times: ''I'm going to provoke you."

He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of

women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or

inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.

The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late

high school years. ''I said no one really understands why this is, and it's an area of ferment in

social science," Summers said in an interview Saturday. ''Research in behavioral genetics is

showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't" due to socialization

after all.

This was the point that most angered some of the listeners, several of whom said Summers said

that women do not have the same ''innate ability" or ''natural ability" as men in some fields.

Asked about this, Summers said, ''It's possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . I

did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . That's what we would

prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied."

Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously

thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once

believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.

In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his

daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she

treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ''daddy truck," and one ''baby truck."

It was during his comments on ability that Hopkins, sitting only 10 feet from Summers, closed

her computer, put on her coat, and walked out. ''It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young

women [at Harvard] are being led by a man who views them this way," she said later in an

interview.

Hopkins was the main force behind an influential study documenting inequalities for women at

MIT, which led that school's former president, Charles M. Vest, to acknowledge the pattern of

bias in 1999. A member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, she is also a Harvard

graduate.

She doesn't argue that there can't be any differences between the abilities of men and women, but

she said there is vast evidence that social factors do affect women's performance. For example,

she mentioned studies that indicate that women score higher on math tests if there are fewer men

in the room while they are taking the test.

The five other women who were offended by Summers' speech also argued that their objections

were based on research that indicates women do perform at the highest levels when given the

same opportunities and encouragement as men.

''Here was this economist lecturing pompously [to] this room full of the country's most

accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things

we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of

Engineering at the University of Washington. Next month, Denton will become the new head of

UC Santa Cruz.

Besides Hopkins and Denton, the participants who criticized Summers to a Globe reporter were

Anne C. Petersen, former deputy director of the National Science Foundation; Catherine Didion,

former executive director of the Association for Women in Science; Donna J. Nelson, chemistry

professor at the University of Oklahoma; and Sheila Tobias, a feminist author and proponent of

women in science.

The organizer of the conference, Harvard economist Richard B. Freeman, described Summers'

critics as activists whose sensibilities might be at odds with intellectual debate.

Summers is known for being confrontational and has stirred up numerous controversies before,

most famously when he questioned African-American studies professor Cornel West's

scholarship and teaching. West subsequently took a job at Princeton.

''We are lucky enough to have a president who is capable and willing to have these discussions

rather than talk in bureaucratese," Freeman said. ''I predict he will get more things done on

women and faculty issues because he's a straight-talking, no-baloney president."

Three other participants reached by the Globe also said they were not offended by Summers'

comments, which they felt reflected mainstream economic theories. They were Sarah Turner, an

economist at the University of Virginia; Paula Stephan, an economist at Georgia State

University; and David Goldston, chief of staff for the US House Committee on Science.

Summers' third point was about discrimination. Referencing a well-known concept in economics,

he said that if discrimination was the main factor limiting the advancement of women in science

and engineering, then a school that does not discriminate would gain an advantage by hiring

away the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere.

Because that doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon, Summers said, ''the real issue is the

overall size of the pool, and it's less clear how much the size of the pool was held down by

discrimination."

Summers ended his talk by describing some of the efforts Harvard is making to improve its

hiring record and help women balance work and family.

''I believe that it's an important part of what I do to encourage frank scientific discussion," he

said. ''I would hope and trust that no one could [doubt] that we are absolutely committed to

promoting the diversity of the faculty."

Marcella Bombardieri can be reached at bombardieri@globe.com.