The Board of Trustees wants to know that there are procedures in place to ensure gender equity at the University of Illinois

“Institutions of higher education have an obligation, both for themselves and for the nation, to fully develop and utilize all the creative talent available” (from statement of nine university presidents meeting at MIT, June 30, 2000).

The University of Illinois Board of Trustees has long concerned itself with ways to achieve equitable and hospitable conditions within the University for all groups so that the University’s goal of fostering excellence may be met. For many years the board has periodically received reports describing the representation of men, women, and minority groups within the student population and among the various employee groups in the University. This report describes the effort of the board to go beyond those statistical presentations of representation.

This report is focused on the status of women within the University of Illinois and how women students, faculty, administrators, professional staff, and support staff are faring at this time. It deals with recruitment of women, particularly faculty and staff; retention of women; opportunities for women faculty and staff to develop new skills; and the University’s record of advancing women, particularly into administrative positions. The report is divided into three main sections, one for each campus of the University, and one small section on the status of women within University Administration.

As the report explains, the impetus for this review was a study released by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Women at the Urbana-Champaign campus in November 1999. The Board of Trustees approved a resolution that same month to review the status of women within the entire University. Mrs. Martha R. O’Malley, the chair of the board’s Committee on Human Resources, was appointed to lead this effort. She in turn invited two colleagues on the Board of Trustees to join her in conducting the review, Mr. Roger L. Plummer, and Ms. Melissa Neely (student trustee from the Springfield campus). At about the same time a report on equity for women faculty at MIT was released. This report documented inequitable treatment of women faculty in salary determination, space allocation, and many other resources. The MIT report was reviewed by this working group of trustees.

After determining the kind of information that these trustees thought would be helpful it presented a list of questions to Vice President Chester S. Gardner and asked him to coordinate collection of the data requested (see Appendix A). Staff in the vice president’s office, as well as several campus-level staff, assembled these data in Spring 2000. At this same time this set of trustees began meetings on the campuses to talk with women faculty, administrators, and staff. These visits are reported in the text of the report. In Fall 2000 the Board of Trustees conducted public hearings on each of the campuses to listen to the University community comment on issues affecting women within the institution.

The data submitted by the campuses and the University Administration (based on statistics available in fall 1999) are reviewed in the text of the report. These data present a picture of growth in participation of women in all groups within the University. They also point to areas where little representation exists, retention of women is low, and possible salary inequities might exist.

During the review the trustees found that many interpretations exist for the same data. Rather than focus on these different interpretations and attempt evaluation of the data, which would have required much time or expertise we looked for trends and common threads found in the data that presented issues in need of remedy. From this perspective the underlying problems seemed clear. For example, on the Urbana campus there were different points of view about the adequacy of data, and the interpretation of those data in at least two studies reviewed by the trustees. Similarly, the well-reported study by women faculty at MIT has drawn several points of view about what was presented and the conclusions drawn.

For the trustees the important issue in these cases is that there is a situation of under-representation for women and some questions of equity. Our report focuses on these and on suggested remedies.

The campus visits revealed very different “climates” on the three campuses, with University Administration identifying with the campuses in character, probably because of mobility between the two structures and close interaction between campus and University-level staffs at the two large campuses. The Chicago campus appears to be very supportive of women and women report a supportive environment. There was some concern among the professional and administrative women that advancement opportunities for them are rather limited and that too often the campus administrators do not recruit internally for new positions.

The trustees’ discussions with faculty and staff at the Springfield campus and the public hearing that occurred a few months later convinced the trustees involved with this review that there are academic departments and units on that campus where women have real difficulty in succeeding due to isolation and lack of support. The pattern of women faculty departing certain departments raised a concern for the trustees. Also of concern was the low representation of women at the full professor level. In addition, the lack of a history of salary equity reviews was a problem, given the disagreement between the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of University Women and the administration on the matter of salary equity for women faculty. The trustees recognize that some problems on this campus may be related to the transition the campus is making from being part of the Board of Regents system to joining the University of Illinois. Also, policies designed for the two other campuses of the University are often difficult to implement at the Springfield campus, given the difference in size. Further, deans and department heads have a more difficult time effecting change due to the size and structure of the Springfield campus.

At the Urbana-Champaign campus, we found mixed to rather negative reactions from women to their situation on that campus. The members of the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Women definitely have concerns and criticisms about salary decisions and they find inequities in salaries for women faculty. Students report some concerns about campus safety, several groups of staff complained about the lack of assistance from the campus in providing child care for employees of the campus, whereas some faculty and administrators found a definite and favorable change in the climate in the last 20 years. Some women graduate students complained about the paucity of women in faculty and leadership positions. The trustees also received a few confidential letters from faculty and staff at this campus. These dealt mainly with complaints of sexual harassment going unchecked; intimidation in the units of women faculty who were in line for promotion or tenure; and general lack of attention to issues of salary equity for women.

After gathering and analyzing much data and digesting the anecdotal information and personal testimonies of many individuals who presented information, the trustees conducting this review conclude that several recommendations are in order to campus and University administrators. These are presented at the conclusion of each section and are to be seen as strongly suggested, but with no intent to prescribe means for correction. The trustees believe that the administration should determine how best to address its recommendations. One recommendation is suggested more strongly than others. That is a recommendation to have systematic, regularly timed analyses of salaries for men and women throughout the University. The Urbana-Champaign campus has a well-developed, sophisticated salary equity study. Both the Chicago and Springfield campuses have salary equity studies. If possible, one approach useful for the entire University would be desirable. While the other recommendations are very important, it is clear that equitable salary treatment is the single most critical determinant in attracting, retaining, and developing women professionals. Another concern the trustees have for each campus is the lack of an exit interview program. We recommend that the campuses put in place a system for providing exit interviews for all faculty and staff.

The trustees note that the presidents of nine research universities recently issued a pledge to work toward better treatment of female faculty members in science and engineering, and to consider changing their universities’ policies to promote equity. They agreed to “recognize that this challenge will require significant review of, and potentially significant change in, the procedures within each university.” We admonish our University administrators to take the same steps. Just as the leaders of other institutions have done we urge our University president and chancellors to work toward the goals of recruiting and developing a faculty that reflects the diversity of our students, providing equity and full participation of women in the University, nurturing a climate that is hospitable to women’s professional aspirations, and creating an institution in which those with family responsibilities are not significantly disadvantaged.

The trustees note with pride and commend the chancellors and others at the campuses and the University Administration for many efforts and urge continuation and enhancement of these. Among these accomplishments we would include: the child care centers at the Chicago campus; the living-learning center at the Urbana-Champaign campus designed to support and encourage women students in mathematics, science, and engineering; the mentoring programs for women at the Chicago campus, scholarships awarded to women administrators at all of the campuses to attend special institutes and educational programs for leadership development; and growing representation of women students in graduate and professional programs on the campuses. In fact, the existence of campus committees expressly established to study the status of women is to be commended. We look forward to receiving progress reports in the years ahead.

In closing, the trustees are extremely grateful for the assistance of many people in the University for their guidance, cooperation, information, and persistence in communicating with them on these issues. We thank the staff for gathering copious amounts of data and for providing us explanations. As well, we thank the faculty, staff, and students who shared information and concerns with us. Without the help and the trust of all of you we would not have been able to carry out our review. We deeply appreciate your candor and your efforts to inform us about many issues.

Introduction

In November 1999, in response to a report issued by the Committee on the Status of Women at Urbana-Champaign, the Board of Trustees voted to review the status of women within the University. This review included students, faculty, Civil Service staff, and administrative/ professional staff. At the January 2000 meeting, the chair of the board assigned this review to the Chair of the Committee on Human Resources. Subsequently, the Chair asked the campuses and the University Administration to help her and two colleagues to understand the current environment for women, and the progress that has been made during the last five years in increasing numbers and levels of responsibility. This working group of the larger committee also asked about the impact of programs that have been implemented to address the issues of recruitment, retention, salary equity, and promotion.

This report summarizes the working group’s assessments of the progress and challenges of increasing representation and retention, as well as providing for salary equity on the campuses and in the University Administration.

Scope of Review

In assessing the status of women within the University and reviewing such issues as gender diversity and equity as well as identifying progress, challenges, and recommendations for improvement, the board members who conducted the review focused their examination in five areas. These areas were: recruitment of women faculty; retention and promotion rates for women faculty; leadership and professional development opportunities for women; climate; and salary equity. To assist in its review, this working group requested that the campuses provide data and other information relevant to an examination of the five areas and responsive to specific questions that were posed. The specific questions are included with this report as Appendix A. Quantitative data were provided in response to some questions, while narrative information was provided in response to others. The written responses to these questions were voluminous and very helpful to the board’s working group. The board members involved also met with small groups of faculty, staff, and administrators on the three campuses, and later conducted hearings on each campus to gather additional first-hand information. The information requested and provided as well as the campus discussions centered primarily on faculty and administration, although many of the comments are applicable to all women within the University.

The report is organized by campus and by observations in each of the five areas mentioned above. The observations take into account an analysis of the data and information gleaned from the interviews and campus hearings. An examination of the University Administration is also included in this report.

Principles Used in Interpreting Data

Numbers alone do not tell the whole story, and in some cases they can be misleading. Indeed, ideal data are typically nonexistent; and numbers alone may not convey or confirm gender equities or inequities. In an organization as large and complex as the University, it is easy to get confused and sometimes frustrated when seeking answers to even basic questions. On the other hand, that should not deter the board from looking at the data and interpreting the numbers as appropriate. As the board members experienced in this examination, data alone often only identify possible problem areas that require further examination in order to complete a review. Some specific data interpretation principles that guided this review are outlined below.

· Much of the numeric data were presented by discipline and for very good reasons. Disciplinary differences can skew campus and college averages and influence overall percentages. However, as the detail becomes finer, the number (n) of observations becomes smaller. Care must be taken to avoid conclusions when n is small.

o Specifically, the percent of faculty who are women varies with the mix of departments within a college or on a campus because of the differences in availability by discipline. Campuses and colleges with large departments in traditionally female fields will have a larger overall percentage of women. The percentage may also vary with the age and turnover of the faculty because of the relatively recent upswing in women seeking doctoral degrees. Campus and college level comparisons among institutions are thus not as revealing as analyses at the department level.

· Some general observations can be made by looking across disciplines and gauging the number of times a particular faculty rank mirrors or exceeds the expected pool. Benchmark data from peer institutions are also useful, but only as a descriptor. For example, if the percent of female professors is significantly below availability and the same disparity exists at peer institutions, then there may exist a bias within the discipline, a propensity for females in the discipline to choose career paths other than the academy, or other discipline specific explanations.

· Many administrators are recruited from the faculty ranks, and some committees are discipline specific; thus it is important to consider disciplinary mixes when reviewing women in leadership roles. However, some general observations can be made by using the proportion of women full professors as a benchmark.

· Tenure rates vary by discipline. While overall rates were provided, it is important to consider differences among disciplines. For instance, if engineering faculty are tenured at twice the rate of education faculty, then a campus average tenure rate for men might appear to be higher than that of women since the percentage of women is far greater in education than in engineering and the College of Engineering is much larger..

· Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries, with men predominant in higher-paid disciplines and women in the lower-paid disciplines, can skew the average salary when computed over the campus.

· The question of salary equity among administrators is a difficult one to evaluate. There are some cases where administrators hold unique titles and responsibilities and thus have no other individuals with whom to compare; and then there are other situations where several people all hold the same title yet the responsibilities are quite different. (A regression analysis was not executed, and therefore the validity of the findings lends itself to question.)

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO

Campus Discussions

In June 2000 Trustees O’Malley and Plummer met with a selection of faculty, staff, and administrators at the Chicago campus (UIC) to discuss these individuals’ perceptions of the status of women on that campus. This included officers and members of the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Women (CCSW), women deans, and the chancellor and provost of the campus.

The representatives of the CCSW presented a history of their committee’s activities in behalf of securing recognition and representation of women faculty and staff on campus since 1967. This included gaining campus support for several units on the campus to address the concerns of women, such as a child care center, a Woman’s Studies Program, and a Women’s Research and Resources Center. The faculty and staff members of the CCSW emphasized that persistence over three decades has brought about significant achievements to enhance the lives of women on campus. These individuals also stressed that the establishment of the east side of the Chicago campus in the mid-1960’s was important because there were few traditions in place to deter women from making suggestions to the administration for implementation of such programs as those listed above. They observed that this, together with the fact that the 1960’s were a time of ferment generally in higher education, and that there were more women being hired on faculties resulting in a critical mass of women in several disciplines, provided a climate for their recommendations to be heard.

With this background, women in all employee groups at the Chicago campus seem to believe that the campus administration is responsive to their concerns. The women faculty and staff interviewed did enumerate concerns they have, such as policies that would help women faculty manage childbearing and child care along with expectations for them as faculty members. They also were concerned about the growth of part-time faculty, most of whom are women. In addition they cited a problem in retaining talented women administrators at all levels and indicated that there seems to be little upward mobility possible at the campus for skillful and ambitious women administrators. They were pleased with the campus administration’s support of leadership training for women and of mentoring programs that are in place to assist women advance. They did suggest that the mentoring programs be institutionalized in the Office of the Provost to ensure continuity, and that more student mentoring be encouraged and formalized.

This group of women faculty and staff recommended regular, annual reviews of salaries for men and women faculty and staff. Certain programs and colleges were cited that were thought to merit review due to apparent gaps in salaries of men and women.

In discussions with women deans, the two trustees involved in this interview session asked the deans how salary equity was addressed. All deans indicated that they look for differences and explanations for these and then correct any inequities. They noted that scarce resources often make for difficulties in addressing inequities. These deans made the point that it is extremely important to maintain salary equity because of the competition for good faculty from other institutions. They also stressed the importance for colleges to have a plan for reviewing and making corrections in salaries. The deans further noted that there are indications of salary problems in certain colleges, but not all.

They all lauded Chancellor Sylvia Manning and former Provost Elizabeth Hoffman for their support of programs to address inequities based on gender and added that having more women deans of colleges on the campus, with 50% of the deans being women, creates a positive environment for women at all levels. They stated that the campus climate for women is very good, and cited the spousal hiring program as an example of a hospitable environment to dual-career couples and a help in recruiting both men and women faculty. However, all observed the lack of men or women of color in major administrative positions.

Later in a separate meeting, the chancellor, the provost, and the Associate Chancellor for Access and Equity, Patricia Gill, discussed strategies for recruiting and retaining women faculty and staff. The provost indicated that she stresses the import of attracting well-qualified women to faculty and administrative positions and that she tries to ensure balance among men and women appointees to search committees whenever possible. Ms. Gill reported that complaints of sexual harassment have been markedly reduced, and that recently there have been very few involving faculty. She attributed this to an improvement in the campus climate for women due to the presence of more women at all levels on campus.

Provost Hoffman reported that at UIC women are awarded tenure at a higher rate than men, but that they also tend to leave the campus in greater numbers. The chancellor noted that the pattern of women following spouses is still in effect, and that in some cases women are leaving for child bearing and child rearing reasons.

This group also reported that salary equity reviews are constant and that the colleges and the provost’s office share in funding equity adjustments. Provost Hoffman stated that she thought that all inequities, whether they be due to gender or to other reasons, would be eradicated by the constant attention to salary reviews.

Chancellor Manning commented on the importance of conducting exit interviews and said that this process was being made systematic and would be expected in the future. She also indicated that she was preparing a study of departures for the last five years in an effort to learn more about what changes in the campus climate were needed.

In general, the discussions at these meetings indicated that women faculty, staff, and administrators at the Chicago campus think they are supported and that there are opportunities for women at that campus. There are some concerns about women’s salaries, coupled with the belief that there are some colleges where salary equity for women is a problem.

On October 11, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, the board held a public hearing on the status of women on the Chicago campus. The chancellor and the provost both made remarks at this hearing and twelve individuals from the campus representing faculty, staff, students, and administrators commented to the board on issues concerning women on the campus.

Chancellor Manning commented on losses to the faculty in the last several years and noted that in the face of these reductions to the faculty the number of women faculty has increased. She described special programs that provide management training for women who aspire to administrative positions and reported that the women faculty are tenured at the same rate as men on the faculty. She also told the board that some units on campus do not have women in sufficient numbers on the faculty, which would be numbers equal to national availability of women in the discipline. She stated that 55% of the undergraduate students are women, 59% of graduate students are women, and 50% of the students in the professional programs are women.

Faculty representatives offering remarks stressed the need for more readily available data on salaries, and on the factors that are considered in making salary decisions. Salary compression for long-term employees was cited as a problem on the campus generally.

Faculty also spoke of the need for policy evaluations concerning issues such as tenure rollbacks and sabbatical leaves, and the impact of these on faculty women’s careers. There were also comments about certain areas of the campus where women struggle for acceptance as faculty members and for considerations afforded faculty men.

An academic professional staff member commented on efforts to provide advancement opportunities for women on the staff who are not faculty. Women comprise 61% of this group. The individual described special efforts to gain acceptance of flex time for these employees, to encourage units to agree to look inside the institution for staff when opening new positions, and to provide opportunities for staff to pursue degrees at the University.

One person spoke to the need for more services to students who are victims of date violence and urged more training for the campus police in dealing with crimes of assault, domestic violence, and stalking.

The commentators had praise for the child-care provided on campus, but expressed the need for much more.

Generally, the tone of comments at this hearing was very positive, characterized by the remark of one commentator that “life is good for women at UIC.” Mentoring programs are well developed, and the staff members believe that these are helpful to them in the performance of their jobs. It was felt that the campus provides a caring environment.

Recruitment of Women Faculty

The data prepared by UIC showed that the percentage of women faculty in each rank compares favorably with other large universities. Among the nations 83 Research I Universities, UIC is well above average in female representation at all ranks. Progress has been most notable in the last five years. Such progress is commendable, especially since in the last five years, the total number of faculty has decreased by 6%.

Often progress is dependent on hiring opportunities; and in a period of reductions, opportunities are less frequent. Nevertheless, progress was made in most units, with significant college level increases in Architecture and the Arts, Public Health, and Social Work. No longer is Nursing the only college with over 50% female faculty; Education, Social Work, and the Library now also share that distinction.

Two engineering departments are the only UIC departments with more than 6 faculty that have no women faculty. With over 100 departments, that is a very low number and speaks well of the strong campus commitment to diversity. In addition, each year the Office of Access and Equity produces a report that provides the number of faculty by department and gender and includes the number of new hires that have been made during the past five years. The report also provides comparative national data for each discipline on Ph.D. production that can be compared by rank with the percentage representation of women in that rank and discipline. This report is reviewed with the deans and senior administrators. Over the last 14 years, UIC has hired 295 women assistant professors, which was 43% of the total assistant professor hires and well above that predicted by the availability pool.

Retention and Promotion Rates for Women Faculty

The seven-year data supplied by UIC suggest that the tenure experience achieved by women and men are quite close. After seven years, 38.4% of men and 35.3% of women are either tenured or still on the tenure track. It would perhaps be more useful to examine the tenured percents after nine years. This would allow for everyone to pass through the tenure track, taking into account that women generally take longer to gain tenure. The primary reason women take longer to gain tenure is their use of tenure rollbacks, the extension of the tenure track for professional or personal reasons, including parental responsibilities. Over the last decade, women received tenure rollbacks at more than twice the rate of men.

There do appear to be some differences in tenure rates in business administration and some LAS departments where the tenure rates seem noticeably higher for men than women, and also in pharmacy where the rate is much higher for women.

As mentioned in the overview, the campus has expressed a desire to continue expanding its mentoring efforts to support informal as well as formal programs to help faculty through the promotion and tenure process.

Leadership and the Development of Women

There is growing representation of women among administrators, particularly at the senior levels. In the last 5 years, the number of female deans doubled (4-8) and the number of female directors nearly doubled (34-64). Currently 44% of the deans and 42% of the directors are women. Approximately 16% of the department heads are female, which is just about equivalent to the representation of females at the full professor level. The campus expects to see an increase in the number of female heads as more females move through the promotion and tenure process.

Administrators are often recruited from the faculty ranks. The campus has a much higher percentage representation of women in senior academic positions than they do among full professors. Female representation at UIC compares quite favorably with the peers at the senior administrative level.

The overall representation of women serving on committees is strong at UIC. Over 43% of campus-wide committee members are female. Women represent 40% of the members on the college executive committees, 42% of the membership on the promotion and tenure committees, and 40% on search committees. It should also be noted that between 1991 and 1999, 141 searches for academic directors and heads resulted in 61 female hires. A woman chaired half of these searches. These numbers are much higher than the percentage of women full professors, which suggests a concerted effort to have women well represented. This also suggests that a higher burden of committee assignment falls to younger assistant and associate female professors.

The campus follows all university statutes related to the review of administrators at both the campus and college levels. Committees are convened by the chancellor and/or the provost for the purpose of formal review of senior administrators. Department heads and chairs and all deans are reviewed every five years. In the case of departmental leadership, the dean of the college is responsible for conducting the review. There are no formal policies that mandate the administrative evaluations to include the administrator’s performance in fostering the professional development of women; but the campus is clearly committed as evidenced by the many programs and workshops, some of which have been in place for several years.

Problem Resolution

TABLE OF CONTENTS