ED 045 060

TITUr

TNSTITUPIONPUB DATT,NOTE

EPPS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

TPENTIFIRS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

H7 001 92P

Report on the Status of Women at the University ofWashington; Part T: 7acultv and Staff."Washington Univ., Seattle.Oc+ 70u8p. Compiled by Associated Students of theUniversity of Washington Women's Commission

EDPS Price ME-$0.2s PC-02.F0riscriminatory Attitudes (Social), T'mploymentOpnortunities, Employment Practices, *'.'acuityPromotion, vemales, *Higher Education, Promotion(Occupational), *Salaries, *Social Discrimination,*Women Professors*Washington University Seattle

The purpose of this report was to determine if sexdiscrimination exists at the University of Washington, to identifythe problems in this area and to facilitate change. This reportexamines: (1) the numbers and location in the academic ranks anddepartments of faculty women; (2) their availability for hirina,meaning the presence of trained women in the community, as well asthe women already working within the institution; (3) hiringpractices; (U) promotion: () salaries: (q the top positions held inthe traditionally "women's professions:" (7) ton positions held in

university as a whole; (8) top positions held in the research endspecial facilities: and (9) the effect of the nepotism rule on theemployment of women faculty and the obstacle to promotion and tenureby the freauent appointment of faculty women to part-time positions.Another section of the report examines salary differentials andpromotion practices for: exempt staff, classified staff, and academicstaff. The reFort concludes that sex discrimination does exists anasuggests measures for rectifying this situation. (AT)

o.

REPORT ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Part Is Faculty and Staff

compiled by

The ASUW Women's Commission

October 1970

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH, EDUCATION

& WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT

HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING

IT. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSA RILY REPRESENT

OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITIONOR POLICY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PurposeB. Methods and SourcesC. Acknowledgements

II. FACULTY WCMEN

A. Numbers and LocationB. Availability for HiringC. HiringD. PromotionE. SalaryF. Channeled FieldsG. Positions of PowerH. Research and Special FacilitiesI. Nepotism and Part-Time Employment

III. STAFF WOMEN

A. Exempt StaffB. Classified StaffC. Academic Staff

IV. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose

The Associated Students of the University of WashinotonWomen's Commission initiated research towards this reoort out ofconcern about sex discrimination at the University of Washinoton.Specific institutions are often microcosms of a larger order, andfollow patterns of prejudice and inequality which characterize soc-iety as a whole; hence to begin at the University of Washington isa constructive measure towards altering the whole.

Our concern was further based uoon tne troubling recoonitionthat the status of women in American academic institutions has ac-tually deteriorated in the last four decades: percentages of womenfacUlty are smaller, especially in the higher ranks; salary differ-entials between men and women are oreater.1 Women's prouns anduniversity committees are oreoarino or have prepared studies ofwomen at the Universities of Maryland, Chicaoo, Oregon, Minnesota,Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, and at Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford; wewished similarly to investigate the status of women at UW in honesof identifying problems and facilitating chanoe. We hone also thatthis report will offer faculty, staff, and student women indicatorsthat the Frustrations we feel separately are caused by conditionswe have in common, conditions we can unite to alter.

B. Methods and Sources

This reoort is divided into two parts; Part I on Faculty andStaff, and Part II on Underoraduate and Graduate Students. Part IIwill be published at a later date, because of a delay in acquiringkey information. Neither part purports to be exhaustive - -hut bothillustrate sufficiently that conditions require immediate rectifica-tion. What is published here has been researched with care; specificfigures may be subject to human error, but we believe the collect-ive statement is clear and needs no amplification.

Our general method was simple. Using the sources listed below,we tabulated numbers of women and men in the same categories andcalculated oercentaoes from the totals. Specific methods used tocompile promotion and salary information are explained in the sec-tions dealing with those subjects, both in the Faculty and in theStaff Reports.

1 Dr. Edwin C.Lewis, Develooino Women's Potential (Iowa StateUniversity, 1968). Also Richard E. Farson, "The Rage of Women,"Look, December 16, 1969, and Patricia Albjero Graham, "Women inAcademe," Science, Vol:: 169, No. 3952 (September 25, 1970), op. 1294-1290.

1. University Documents Consulted:

a. List of Basic Teaching Faculty, Autumn Quarter 1969;81 dittoed pages with breakdown by school, department,and rank obtained from the Provost's Office; hereafterreferred to as the "Provost's List." The list does notinclude visiting or research faculty.

b. Two anonymous commuter runs of staff and academic per-sonnel salaries as of May 29, 1970; breakdown by school,department, rank, and sex for academic personnel, andby series, code, and sex for staff; with hiring dateand percent of time; obtained through the Provost'sOffice and the Office of Personnel Services.

c. University of Washington Statistical Report for AutumnQuarter, 1969.

d. University of Washington Bulletin 1970-72; Faculty Index

e. Graduate Study and Research Bulletin 1969

f. University of Washington Faculty Handbook, RevisedEdition 1969

g. "Nepotism Statement," University Memorandum #41, October22, 1969

h. Directory of the University Senate for 1969-70

i. Prooram of Exercises, Ninety-Fifth Commencement (unre-vised), June 13, 1970.

j. Salary Schedule and Compensation Plan for Staff Emoloyees, July 1, 1970

2. University Offices and Agencies which provided information:

a. Office of the Provo et

b. Office of Personnel Services

c. Graduate School Office

d. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs

e. Graduations Office

f. Office of University Committees

g. Office of Career Planning and Placement

h. Director of Libraries

1. Office of Student Affairs

C. Acknowledoements

We take full responsibility for interpretations of data inthis report. We wish, however, to express gratitude to those per-sons who gave us encouragement, advice, and assistance in compilingPart I: Eugene Elliott, Vice-Provost; Thelma T. Kennedy, AssociateDean of the Graduate School; David Williams, Director of PersonnelServices; Marion A. Milczewski, Director of Libraries; Carver Layton,Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs; Anne Schwiesow,Director of the University YWCA; Barbara Garner, Graduate and Pro-fessional Student Senate; Julie Coryell, Instructor, Women's Studies;Carol Spence, UW Human Rights Commission; Pat Lunneborg, Lecturer,Department of Psychology; Lisa Wood.

Funding for this report was provided by the Associated Stu-dents of the University of Washington and the University of Wash-ington Graduate and Professional Student Senate.

ASUW Women's CommissionOctober, 1970

Freshmen

Sooh.

Juniors

Seniors

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF MEN AND WOMEN

Autumn Quarter 1969

52.68% (3476)

, 1 47.32A (3122)

.

1 56 37"1 (3313)

71 43.63% (2565)>72/ j

59.82-';) (3438)

/7/ 4 . a ( 2309 )

61.61% (3324)1/ 'v./7/ i /) 38.39 (2071)

GraduateProfession-;-, ,

al Students.- //'/ 27.52% (2091)

72.483"0 (550E)

54.031, (47)Lecturers /// /

,,.//d ( 40)

58.86% ( 103 )Instructors

AssistantProfs

AssociateProfs

Full Profs

DepartmentChairmen

, / ////A 41. (72 )

14.20170 (98)

j 85.eo (5q2

11.27% ( 68 )

88.73A(535)

//A 4.47% (32 )

. _ _1// 3.41:;4; ( 3 )

ji 95.534)

(683)

96.59, (8E,

II. FACULTY WONEN

A. Numbers and Location

According to figures drawn from the Provost's List, women con-' stituted 13.7% of Of? University's basic teaching faculty as of'Autumn Quarter 1969.1 Although a more recent official documentwas not available in time for this report, analysis of a flay 29,1970 salary computer run sugoests that the general situation chancedlittle in 1969-70 (to 13.8) and in some specific areas actually

.

deteriorated. Table 2 documents the Provost's List; it may be com-pared with the computer run figureS in Table 3.

Both tables illustrate a characteristic of women's particina-tion on college and university faculties nationwide: the higher therank', the fewer women in it. During the 1940's, women earned anaverage of 150 of all doctorates awarded. They earned an averaeeof 100 of all doctorates awarded during the 1950's, and an averaceof 11% during the 1960's. Given the usual timetable of the academiccareer, women who earned their decrees in the 40's should be repre-sented now in the hioher ranks of the faculty at IJ)J in a proportionof 15%, and in the lower ranks in a proportion of 10%.2

Instead, women constitute only 4.7% of the full professors atWJ, only 7.6% of full and associate professors combined. On thelower rungs of the promotion "ladder" women make un 14.2% of assis-tant professors and 41.1% of instructors; off the ladder, womenfill 45.9';': of lecturer annointments, which are without presumptionof promotion. Nationally, one-fourth of all faculty men are con-centrated in the highest academic rank, while less than one-tenthof the women are represented there.3 At UJ the gap is even greater:over one-third of faculty men are full professors, while one-tenthof women hold that rank.

womenA ko of women

menVis'

% of men

Full Prof. 32 /\\A61. \6E13 96 35L

Assoc. Prof. 68 /I1;14 32

32 535 89 27 62

Asst.. Prof. 96 592\ R6 30Instructor 72 41 23 103 \\59 5

Lecturer 40. 46 13 47 5477-15 1960 \

1 The Provost's List does not include research or visiting faculty.-Historical Statistics of the Unived States: Colonial Times

to 1957TSeries H377-336), and Circulars l'..1,57066 of the U.S. Officeof Education.

:5Colleoe and University Faculty: A Statistical Descrintion,Carneoie Commission on Higher Education and American Council onEducation. Quoted in Higher Education and National Affairs, Vol.19 (July 17, 1970), p. 5.

TABLE 2

Numbers and Percentages of Women and Men Faculty, Tenured Faculty, and Graduate Students in each

Department as of Autumn Quarter. 3969

(Sources: Provost's List

avid PakfurvnguOtir

icio)

Dept.

FAc

As

mw

mw

ARCH/UP

m

Arch

8

Land Arch

UP

7

15

- I00

ARTS- & SCIENCES

Anthro

9

Art

II

Asian

7

Ast

4

At Sci

7

Botany

8Chem

19

Classics

3

Comm

7

Drama

6

Econ

IO

Eng

23

FER

7

Genetics

9

Geog

7

Geo Sci

9

Geophy

Germ L&L

5

Hist

16

Home Ec

Ling

I

Math

28

NEL

5

Music

16

Ocean

7

Phi l

4

PE-Men

I

PE-Women

Physics

21

Psych

14

Poll Sci

9

IL

mw

mTOTAL W :

7°

41 .100

2 100

34

14 I00

0!

25

014

0:

I0

20

57 I00

0 :I00

0 II00

0;100

0I00

0

I:

77

2I

I124

;

86

2:

16

213

23

I144

86

4:2

33

i, I7

89

I5 100

32

I13 I00

4I

i! 16 I00

55

1129 100

55

13 I00

5I

5I

J:I8

95

5I

4I

I3

;! I5

)7

I14

23I

9i

13

434

22

1:70

90

62

15 I00

53

17 I00

63

16 I00

63

18 I00

73

4 I00

:7

I9

31: 21

81

II

If.IO

I11 37

95

23

83

6

34

8 IOU

15

225

4I

72

96

2I

7:

14

93

3!

II

3i14

2I

3I

i!44

81

I!

41IO

121

95

12

'

7I

Ifl15 100

6;

2I

I0 ;100

31

5.

I2

3h

I7

II

!I0

42 100

9I

i

16

3I

I;140

89

9;

6ij 24 IGO

TENURED

i

GRAD STUDENTS

TM

A%

W% Tw

IM.

%W

%T

I:; 27 166

;40

93

3=

743

I50

.

14

I0

; 71

.

90

83

19

:17 109

,.130

; 81

22 ; 19 152

57

38

67

414

714

2; II

I5

630

3'

9

810

28

51 19

15

;I3

16

29 13

19

21

34

78

15 17

16

18 4

5. 19

26

2.

5 :39

22 100

22 8

34

75

I7

15

:I0

19

54

I5 :22 15

I0

93

14

42

II

45

24

'

16

;

27

II

!4

IO

IO

:24 8

12

II

17

36

13

;13

13

15 I

12

27 4

43 7

27

II 6 7

32

23

18

'67

'6I

; 65

80 77

63

83

62

67

73

; 55

51

87

1 76

'8I

83 25

57

73

1 50

60

50

61

5240

70

'

76

58

75

20

457

2 .100

I I00

,3

: 50

I33

;4

50

!I I 5 2

67

I I00

6 I I00

'

862

I20

20

50

23

56

; 54

48

157

41

87

" 15 I00

34

92

24

65

142

83

29

! 66

117

59

20

51

72

87

; 177

52

19

79

25

81

68

88

9'

12

77

53

93 ;

4!

7:

57

27

96

.

I.

4 ! 28

29 ,40 '44

60

73

147

88 142

22 .189

!

38 :100

38

22

! 59: 15

41

37

149

81

; 34

19 TS3

7 :55 1

5:45

12

71

58 1 52

; 42 123

89'86 1 15' 14 104

56

85

1IO :

15

66

15 I00

'

;

15

: 27 100

'

27

155

97 :

!3 159

72 :64:40 ; 36 112

98 :84

18 i16 116

47

46 103

36

' 43

84

12

23 i53 15

3a 8

37

13

35

37

31

14

;12

19

II

162 5 6

17 179

34

,41

41

29

49

39

13

83

48 339

: 21

24

19

; 31

Dept.

m

Rom

ance

L II

Sca

nd3

Sla

vic

IS

oc12

Spe

ech

4Z

oo12

F

wi

M

I8 9

Il

JO

I7

Ac

Im

I> 1

4 I 6 5I

132

!5

As w 2 I 4

m

316

1722

232

:376

356

%95

587

13;

89II

43

ED

19I

|21

522

5|

195

581

1981

190

BU

S A

D

Acc

tng

66

2

Fin

ance

65

7

BG

S7

|3

3

MO

165

I6

MT

IB9

;5

I6

40

,24

224

00

%I0

00

'92

8' M

O0

0

EN

G MA

96

4C

hE8

42

CE

1713

7E

E15

714

GE

4II

52

HS

S3

7

ME

1317

5

MM

CE

64

5

NE

I3

277

072

I: :

450

;2

%I0

00

:99

II0

00

1100

FIS

H16

O1

75

01

0%

I00

O'IO

U

FO

R R

ES

ISO

;13

O4

00

%10

00

;IOC

O '1

000

001

i,

LIB

2I

1!I

211

.3

20

%67

3333

67 i

6040

0

Iw

:m I

c 1

2 2 I

8:

2257

;45

I;

100

Lr

4i'

1

3 ''

I 2;

TO

TA

LT

EN

UR

ED

M :

Wi

%;

TM

% .'

W;

34! 8

1!

8 (1

942

i:19

562

4 I0

0,

ii

4 ii

3;

75 I

1

101

714

'29

'I4{

2! 2

01,

28;1

00I

!28

;; 2

11 7

5!28

. 80

,7

:20

: 35

;ri

i50

:2

24' 8

2'5

;17

29I9

: 79;

4

GR

AD

ST

UD

EN

TS

% :i

M%

.W

%.

T25

/43

.35

!79

65 ;1

22;;

7'41

JO.59

1711

20 1

45 1

24;

55 :

44;i :7

'6 ,3

5 :3

1 .1

1229

.: 5

0 ;4

4 16

3 :5

6 ;1

1380

j43

:69

;22

;33

!65

27 55§8

4,

88 1

17 ;1

2 95

9 53

5: 6

450

43 2

021i

70

;T

enur

ed F

acul

ty: 9

2% m

en,1

8%

wom

en!

962

;3 ;

2983

2 4. I

03

0| 6

0 I I 2

0j

40

CIO

01

I0

too

0.

0 0

0I

00

I0

31 8

4 ;

I2 1

16 .7

5j 4

063

6 :5

0 31

4 i5

319

Ten

ured

Fac

ulty

: 87%

men

,1 1

3% w

omen

633

; §

i

1493:

I1

7 }I

5 : 1

2gb

18 I0

0 ;

!; I

8 .;

III C

,1!

1594

;I

1

6i 1

6IC

)67

1

27. 9

6:I

I4

; 31

.;2;

,74-

II

:

2195

;I

!5

. 22

,14

:

6-7

;I

240

9596

4 ;

4:99

::67

;71

.2

; 50

;487

:T

enur

ed F

acul

ty: 9

7% M

en,;

3% w

omen

9812

249

9

0 0

; 1

.,

I;

1

19 I0

0 1

1; 7

91,.1

15|

791

;12

2; 9

8

1

!14)

12!

861

50 9

8 I

.;14

I001

;

.

37 1

00!

; 37

:129

;78

!.i

180

99f

,38

97;

I3

; 391

: 231

611

110

' 198

99

1.

1

23 I0

0'12

3 i!

15. 6

51;1

21; I

C)!

83

j;

12IOU;

-36

1-,!

. I00

113

629

1 81

134'

99

11

15 I0

0;1

51! I

0; 6

7;:

60 M

O6

I00

'6

;;41

67

45 1

00/2

0099

;1

:I 2

01 ;1

47 ;

74 ;

I I00

789

99 .

;T

enur

ed F

acul

ty: 9

9% m

en, I

% w

omen

2 11

242

|

I I|

I| .

I

51 182

199 - 135 60 45

796

9 I0

0{0

029

:123

79;

00

102

8912

;11

4

!32

1.0

01O.

:11

.2

il;8

i-,

0.:

.11

3:i

1;

92I

123

..

11.

655

15

,45

'II

I:31

501

3, 6

0 .!

29T

enue

d F

acul

ty:50%

'men

, 50%

wom

en12

2O

3''

1

88 I

232

.

Dept.

FAc

;As

mw

mw,

mw

m

PUB AF

50

20

i2

00

0

%I00

0I00

0; 100

0

LAW

201 4116

I

%95

580

20

;86

14

00

00

L

mw

00'

00'

0

TOTAL

M%

W

9 ;100

;0

w 0

TENURED

M%

W

7 i78! 0

GRAD STUDENTS

M%

W;

%;

T

69

; 78

20

22

89

30 ;

91

3!

9I

33

22

73

267

339

91

34

9 373

Tenured Faculty: 92% men, 8%women

'

HEALTH SCIENCES

Med

115

I

Dent

19

2

Nurs

6

Pharm

IO

SW

IO

3

154

%93

113

6 ;150

14

I;

24

I12

:3

4

16

6;

I0

25 iI9I

15

78

12

144

785

27

i85

17

13

II

476 ; 88

62 ;12 538

176 137

23

512

86

86

95

20 ;,

681 89

8II

76

29

43

338

383

; 99

425

41

4 ;

184 195

88

I25

; 18

21

4F

2 174

14 ;MO

;14

JO

:71

to

21

66

II

336 t75

i

12 :25

48

26

72

975

131

; 39 204

55

94

63

15

11

.598

78 166

22 764

242

40

32

19 1051

69 479

22

60

40

58

42''

Tenured Faculty: 88% men, 12% women

14 598b

I 387

98 178

34

32

61 335

31 1530

TOTAL

683

32

535

%96

489

68 1592

98

103

72

47

II

186

14

59

4I

;

54

40 j960i 86 310 ;14 ';2270 1152:59 '96 :31 5508 172'2091,28 7599c

46

Tenured Faculty: 92% men, 8% women;

2Business Administration statistics by,department were not available.

i'Medical and Dental student totals include both graduate and professionalprograms.

Graduate Student Total exceeds the sum of school and department totals due to addition of

"unassigned,"

"visiting," and "special individual PhD program" students.

TABLE 3

Unofficial Teaching Faculty Numbers and Percentages as of May 29, 1970(Source: anonymous salary computer run abtained from the Provost'sOffice and the Office of Personnel. Services.)

Schoolm w

Acm w

ARCH 13 0 24100 0 100

A&S 292 18 20994 6 ' 86

BA 43 0

;70 100 0

ED 15 1

94 6

0

0

33 '"

14

24 1

96 4

24 6

80 20

ENG 70 0 68 1.

mAs

m m w m

14 0 1 0 20'100 0 100 0 95

271 33 14 10 4289 11 58 42 f 59

27 0 0 0 12100 0 0 0 00

18 4 0 0 B

82 18 0 0 i 73

46 0 i I 0 8

0 725

31 :82641 i

3

20

3

27

0;4 100099 1 10000000

FISH 14 0 5

% 100 0 100

FR 16 0 9

100 0 100

LIB 1 1.170 50 50

0 4 O i 0 0 1 0

U 100 0 0 0 100 0

0 3 0 j 0 0 1 0

0 ,100 0 0 n 10o o

1 1 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 650 50 67 33 ± 0 0 0 100

1

0 Oi 1 0 B0 0 '100 0

99 1

87 125

106 96 4

65 82 , 14

:193 99

24 100

29 100

50

100

94 2

PA 5 0 1 0i 1 0100 0 100 0 100 0

20 0 4 1 8 1

./0 100 0 80 20 89 11

HSMed 97 0 57 69 17Dent 15 2 1 9 1 1 15 0

Nurs 0 5! 2 13 1 15Pharm 9 0 : 0 0 3 0

SW -9 2 ' 13 5 3 3

132 7 81 21 91 7794 6 80 20 74 26

0 0 0 0 32o o 0 0

21 6 5 9

16 5 I 0 05 36 I 0 1

0 0 0 1

0 1 1 5 2

77 48 10 13 35647 53 43 57

1

13

4

18

1

73

953

110

79

194

a

6 50

29

12

34

75 118,25 474

TOTAL 621 2996 4

450 64 487 72 53 511 103 53 171988 12 87 13 50 50 66 34

i

86 276 i 14 1995

1

In only one of the fifteen schools and colleges (Nursing) doesthe number of women equal the number of men (Tables 4,5). Of the100 departments, schools, and faculties which are listed separatelyin the Provost's List, over half have no women on the faculty, andover two-thirds have no tenured women. Only three show more womenthen men: Home Economics, Aomen's Physical Education, and Nursing.

Areas Without Women

%# w/o ten-ured women 4School or College it depts.

1, w/owomen

Architecture 3 3 100 3 100

Arts and Sciences 37 17 46 20 54

Business Administration 5 1 20 3 60

Education 2 0 0 0 0

Engineering 9 8 89 8 89

Fisheries 1 1 100 1 100

Forest Resources 1 1 100 1 100

Librarianship 1 0 0 0 0

Public Affairs 1 1 100 1 100

Law 1 0 0 0 0

Pedicine 24 9 38 22 92

Dentistry 12 9 75 9 75

Nursing 1 0 0 0 0

Pharmacy 1 1 100 1 100

Social Work 1 0 0 0 0

100 51 PT 69 69

It is surprising to discover that the social sciences,4 whichinclude those disciplines professionally concerned with minorityproblems and social change, have a significantly lower percentageof faculty women than the University faculty as a whole (94.5::, or256 men to 5.5 or 15 women; the University is 86% men to 14% women).

4Anthronolony, Communications, Economics, Far Eastern and Russian,Geonraohy, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Political Science, Psy-choloey, Snciology. Where assignment to "social science" and "hum-anities" catroories was unclear, individual departments were called.

AC

A.3

FAC

L

AS'

F

AC

AS

L

FAC

AC

11(1 F Flie.CLry 11,0 111. N 0C/iNg IN LACI4 Sic a ltiLLCO

L)TR Bo.*Cv1LW 1%rf,'CL-N111k;t CE M AND n1L.N LTY IV;

olreco) %Ad tfi IINO N t:b(1,11%:".it. YIL

LA P.\ \Ai0 ico rilc... I

0 100 '77 -....-7.-AAtiii[cci-uRE

(15

2) 7s 7 t )QICN(11c.;

sft53 .47

L.

FrIc. ; 4.4,

ISWCITIeN 6.(7.

0 tO0

ENCANC-.1.,RI NC-O WO

0 lc'(C

_

0C.,

C

AC 1 r 3

Jic ('ti

ROtORCE5

NSH

(it'. .t.

A C.

AC

AC.

L

AS

AC_

L

Ak;

1

L

F

NC

.17

h

L

Tau: 4,

o ICC0 ict

CC:

5 '16

15 gs

C:

PliC),1_ C

(\ FA I EZ

MAI

I ci9

cif) NIL bl CNC5 S'S

11 11:3

I[ -TT-- 7 ---71q ?)

'-1

1 C. I I; (.1.

1 t 3 L- 1.-Ji-,:- :.- -:-,...,....,_,, ...-. :-:1 -0- t 0 C:

I

rh IL 5;

L4 si I

I 0 I:: c.

N TI

NORSINIC

r11111)1111ei

SOCit

-TAMA: `..-)

, wnic.!

[,,,......-71... ,...0.,7,1vesok:,

MC.]

s.f.

171C n

rcC

-71

,1

CI c

IL

ii'. L

7'1

FI

As of Autumn Quarter 1969, six of the eleven departments had nowomen faculty at all, although there are women oraduate studentsin every department who constitute 25.7 of the social sciencegraduate student total (244 of 948).

In addition, "humanities" departments5 within Arts and Sciences- -traditionally considered to be tolerant of female oarticipation--shc.xa surprising disoarity between faculty and graduate student ratiosmen to women.

m:w Gh women

Faculty 314/80 20

UndergraCuate 883/2053 70

Graduate Students 540/558 51

MA degrees '69-'70 104/132 56

PhD Candidates " 70/31 31

PhD degrees 29/15 34

This exemplifies an interesting pattern: in department afterdepartment, percentages of women oraduate students are higher thanthe percentage of women faculty. Of the 51 denartments with nowomen faculty, half (25) have from to 59 women graduate students:in the 26 departments which do have women faculty members, all but2 have a higher percentage of women oraduate students than of womenfaculty (Electrical Ennineerino and Dentistry are the exceptions),and in 40./D (17) of those departments the percentages of women orad-uate students are at least double that of women faculty members.Twelve of the fifteen schools or colleges show lower percentanes ofwomen faculty then of women oraduate students (Business Administra-tion, Law, and Dentistry are the exceptions). Situations like thosein the Botany, Classics, and Sociolooy departments, where 35, 34,and 31Y0 respectively of the oraduate students are women, but no wo-men are on the faculties, strongly indicates "underutilization"--women, professionally trained, are available in the work pool, butare not being hired.

Another area of interest is the Craduate Faculty (Tables and7). Appointment to this body carries with it special orestiae sinceit implies the hioh denree of competence expected for research,scholarship, and the training of graduate students. In some deoart-ments, nomination to Graduate Faculty is more or less automatic for

'Art, Asian Lancuaoes and Literature, Classics, English andComparative Literatue, Drama, Serman, Home Economics, Near EasternLanguages and Literature, raisic, Scandinavian Lanouaoes and Litera-ture, Slavic- Languages and Literature, and Speech.

Graduate Faculty

Dept, FmwmwmwmARCHArch 7

UP 8

(Source:

Ac

122

TABLE

4

5

Graduate Study and Research Bulletin

Aswi

2315

%

100100

% T

2315

15 0 14 0 9 0 0 o 100 0 0 36`4100 0'100 0 100 0 0 0 0

A&SAnthro 10 5 1 5 2 1 20 87 13 -23Art 11 12 2 12 35 90 4 10 '39Asian 4 2 2 1 P 14 87 2 13 :16Astron 3 1 V 5 100 5

At Sci 7 2 2 11 100 11

Botany 6 3 2 11 100 . 11

Chem 16 7 3 26 100 26Classics 3 4 1 8 100 8

Comm 6 4 4 14 100 14

Drama 5 5 5 15 88 2 12 17

Dr. Arts 10 3 2 15 94 1 6 16Econ 9 6 1 2 17 94 1 6 18Eno 28 24 2 18 3 70 i 92 6 8 76FER 10 10 2 6 1 27 93 2 7 29Gene 10 4 3 17 100 17

Gem? 6 7 2 15 100 15Geo Sci 6 6 4 16 100 16Geoohy 16 4 5 25 100 25Germ 5 5 1 3 13 93 1 7 :14Hist 14 6 1 9 31 94 2 6 '33HE 3 8 100 8

Ling 3 2 5 100 5

Math 27 12 1 19 58 98 1 2 59Music 13 1 9 2 22 88 3 12 25NES 4 2 4 10 100 10Ocean 8 3 1 6 17 94 1 6 19Phil 3 3 3 9 100 9PE 1 5 2 2 6 46 7 54 !13Physics 20 8 5 33 100 33Psych 13 9 1 8 2 30 91 3 9 '33Poli Sci 9 9 6 24 , 100 24Romance 9 6 1 9 1 24 87 3 13 27Russian 7 4 1 2 13 93 1 7 14

Scand 3 1 4 100 4

Slavic 6 4 1 2 12 92 1 8 13

Soc 11 1 5 1 3 19 100Speech 3 1 ! 9 1 6 2 18 82 4 ; 18 22Zoo 14 7 1 ! 2 23 96 1 4 26_

34'2 14 22 27 156 15 0 U , 2 0.726 -)".5 57 . 7 77;1

, 96 C 9'9 11 91 0 n Hot' o (777, :7.

'(N U:;:1'.1-(1;1 viL;5-1.1ctv Nit(

162 ,lf .'.. I

1969)

Dept.m

BUS ADAcctnq 6

Finance 7

BGS 7

MD 14NTIB 9

70 100

15% 94

COMPSCI 7

% 100====A&AChECEEEMENN CENE

W m

6

TABLE

Ac '

W m

N;vthvluiA(Dcccle:c+)

Asw

I L

T1

4 2it

2 2

4 1

50 21 1 4 0 n 0 1

0 P5 5 100 0 0 0 '100

1 16 2 8 2 0 0 0

6 89 11 i 90 20

6 ; 1 0 0

0 100 0 100 0 0 0

10 I 28

1

1 3

18 I 8 I 6t

15 I 10 1 8

12 135

1

69 0

100 0

5

2 ! 43 2

L2 1 30 0 0 0

OH 2 100

U

0

1313111814

10010C1

100 t

95 1

100'86

131311

5 E 1914704

0 39 89 5 11 ; 44

0 :1 14 ! 100 14

1613

1 32

!! 33

30II 11

100 : 16100`. 13100; 3297! 1 3 34100 30100

6 100116

0141 99 1 1 1421!; (100)0

FISH 14 5 1

% 100 0 100 0

FR 15 11 I 1

100 0 100 0 100

LIB 2 250 50 33 67 50 50 0 0 0 0 67) (5r0

20 100 0 0 2069)

0 0 27 ! 100 0 0 27

0 0 o n Cbe)

1 2 ; 1 1 0 0 ! 0 0 4 ; 44 5 56 9

PUB AFF 7 4

100 0 100 03

100

2 0100 0

5

6

3

92 1

1 95 1

5

3

L AVJ 16 1 1 1

94 6 50 50HEALTH :it I PeBiochem 6

Filo StBiomath 8

Comp Phys 7Dent 13Microbio 8

NursinoPath 5Pharmacol 3Oharm 10

2

43

3

1 121 2

5 145

1

(mitt {11(9.11;tittlis,;ible. r,fe

430 r (Ucttai p

0 0 1 0 15 1 100 0 0 150 0 100

0 0 ,19 90 2 10 2167)

1

k;Fet,Civv.k.tt5, (or' bttUr a Nt4.4;v1

i 13 100 1315 100 1514 i 100 1410 100 in

:134 94 2 6 3612 86 2 14 142 6 29 94 31

;i 15 94 1 6 169 100 9

13 1100 13

li

Dept.

Phys filedPhys/BioPhys/PsyPrey MedRediolSWSuro

TOTAL%

1,

TABLE 7( (Concluded)

wmF

w mAc

w mAs

wI

m

1 3 1 1 2

7 7 2 3 4

5 1 1

5 5 5 2

14 3 1

8 2 9 33 5 5

108 9 65 20 59 14 7

92 9 76 24 SO 20 87

653 27 408 54 281 33 7

96 4 BB 12 89 11 87

Irl

ELt /117

L

m w

01/0 W

7 87 1

21 91 2

7 10015 88 2

18 10017 77 5

13 1000 0 235 84 44

% T

13 8

9 237

12 1718

23 2213

16 2791-3.;,.......0W6 272.

1 4 0 1353 92 115 8 146813 100 0

all regular faculty members; in other departments, oresticle out-weighs puiely functional definition, and nomination is elitist.As the tables indicate, the proportion of women nominated to grad-uate Faculty status is much lower than that of men (37.09% to 69.030).Forty-two of the 76 departments (55%) have no women at all.

These numbers show clearly the absence or role models forwomen students--a factor which will be discussed more fully in thesecond part of this report to be published at a later date. Thenumbers also demonstrate that at UW, as elsewhere, women are concen-trated in the low - paying, low - ranking jobs with the least security(women constitute only 8Y0' of the tenured faculty), Rod are neitherhired nor promoted according to availability.

B. Availability for Hiring

According to the US Office of Federal Contract Compliance," availability" is the presence of trained women in the community aswell as that of women who already work within the institution.

Certainly the disproportionate scarcity of women in high ranksof the faculty could be remedied by promoting qualified individualsfrom the lower ranks. At present, rules and conventions oreventthis from occurring on the basis ofmerit (see section on Nepotism).

Most explanations of the overall paucity of women on the UWfaculty have been in terms of the lack of qualified womes7 available.One way to evaluate such an explanation is to examine the number ofwomen in the "hirino pool" from which departments in the Universityrecruit faculty. The next three tables oresent three indicators fornumber of women PhD's in UW's hirino pool. Table S presents the num-bers of men and women who earned decrees from the 11 leadino Americanuniversities in 25 fields over two five-year intervals. Tableshows percentages of doctorates awarded to women in selected fieldsduring academic year 1967-68. Table 10 documents percentages ofdoctorates earned by UW women in 1969-70. Since 85 of the presentfaculty (161 men and 24 women) earned their PhD's from UW, peoplewho have recently received doctorates from UW can be considered partof the hirino pool. Recruitment amono doctoral candidates wouldprovide the University with additional resources.

These tables illustrate that, although percentage and numbersvary from field to field, many pools offer substantial proportionsof women. Certain variables such as hirino criteria other than thePhD and the ability of WI to attract talented women must be kept inmind, but it is difficult to believe that no woman of distinctionappeared in these pools, that no woman of excellence could be foundin Anthropology and Psychology (whose cools are proportionate]y larcej,or that no woman of distinction could be attracted to join depart-ments at UW where in Autumn 1969 there were no tenured women. Ifefforts were made to recruit qualified women as well as men, theUniversity could approach representation of the sexes proportionateto availability.

TABLE

Earned PhD Degrees From Leading Universities (By

Top 11Academic Area Universities 1955-60 b

Humanities

Sex)a....--, wnkkr

Top 11Universities 1962-67

Classics (Latin & Greek) 72 9 128 34English and Literature 681 133 881 239Frenc. 100 56 102 66Spanish 60 18 71 18German 51 14 105 29Philosophy 223 17 299 28

Social SciencesAnthropology 177 38 281 71Economics 513 23 674 34Geography 137 15 183 14History 619 74 871 11BPolitical Science 453 29 548 62Psychology 685 151 624 174Socio]ogy 285 47 350 63

Physical SciencesAstronomy 5C B 146 10Chemistry 1244 71 1483 120Geology/Geophysics 437 9 506 11Mathematics 439 23 796 39Physics 841 23 1460 30

Biological SciencesMicrobiology 163 21 185 41

Biochemistry 184 30 266 57Biology (General)c 140 26 165 36Zoology 269 51 240 45Botany 171 34 201 32Pharmacolooy 53 4 96 16Physiolooy 81 11 98 13

aStatistics from Women in the University of Chicaoo: Reportof the Committee on University 'Nomen, i:lay 1, 1970, D. 67. 'Entriesreoresent.total number of PhDs °ranted in each five-year periodby the ten too - ranking universities, plus the University of Chicago.Quality rankinos for 1955-60 are from H. Keniston, Graduate Studyin the Artd and Sciences at the University of pennsylvania (PFila-delohia: 1959). Quality rankings for 19E-67 are from A.ifl. Cartter,An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (Washington, D.C.:1966). Number of degrees taken from Earned Decrees Conferred: Bach-elor's and Hioher Decrees (Washington, D.C. Government PrintingOffice, annually 1955-56 throuoh 1966-67).

bThe universities referred to vary from one field to the nextand from one time interval to the next.

cQuality rating for Zoology used for General Biology degrees.

TABLE

Percentaoe of Doctorates Awarded to Women in Selected Fields1967-68 (Source:Earned Decrees ConfE.rred (Washinoton, D.C.,

in

of Ed-Government PrintiF37773766777FE77=37aTary Data, Officeucation, OE-54013-68-A.)

Humanities Physical ScienceEnglish & Literature 27.4% Mathematic3 6 %French 38.1% Chemistry 8 %Italian 18 %Spanish 31.7& Biological SciencePhilology & Litera- General Biology 29 %

ture of Romance General Zoolooy 14.8%Languages 35.8% Microbiology, Vir-

Germanjournalism

23.9%15.6%

ology, mycology,Parisitology, and

General Arts 25 % Bacteriology 18 %Music 14.5% Biochemistry 22.3%Speech & Drama 18.5% Pharmacology 14.1%Fine and Applied Arts 34 % Pharmacy 10 %

Social SciencesLinguistics 20.6%Philosophy 9.1%Psychology 22.5%Anthropology 23.9History 13 %Political Science 11.4%Sociology 18.5%Social Work 22Economics 5.8%Library Science 31.8%

EducationMentally RetardedDeaf, Speech, HearingArt EducationMusic EducationEarly Childhood

44.4%23.8%34 %11 %

100 %Elementary 42.4%Secondary 17 %Adult 21.4Administration 8.2%Counseling/Guidance 20.9%Rehab. Counselor 23 %History & Philosophy 19.2%Curriculum/Instruction 24.5%General Education 18.7%Educational Psych. 28.4%

TABLE

Percentage of Doctorates Earned by Women at the University ofWashington in 1969-70 (Source: Prooram of Exercises, Ninety-Fifth Commencement(nrevisell official numbers from the Grad-uations Office were not broken down by field.)

Humanities( Arts & Sciences)Asian Language/Literature 50 %English and Comp Lit 32 %Germanic Lang/Lit 67 %Music 16 %Romance Lang/Lit 75 %

Social Science (Arts & Sciences)Anthropology 25 %Political Science 28 %Psychology 10 %Sociology 13 %

Physical Science (Arts & Sciences)Atmospheric Sciences 25 %Chemistry 6 %

Biological Science (Arts & Sciences)Zoology 18 %

Education 16 %

Medicine (M.D.) 11 %Law 0.0.) 5 %

C-411-1( 611 NIL%

Moreover, evidence sugaests that women in some fields shouldbe represented in higher proportions than that of degrees earnedon the grounds that women are more often employed by educationalinstitutions than are men: 2/3 of men with PhD's work in education,4/5 of women. Women are more likely to earn a PhD in the humanitiesthan in science, therefore more likely to be teaching rather thanworking in industry. In 1966, for example, 17.4% of the doctoratesin the humanities and social sciences wgnt to women although only110 of all PhD's awarded went to women.''

C.Hirino

Due to inaccessibility of the required information, no system-atic study of hirino was possible. There seems to he wide discre-tionary decision-making amono deans, department chairmen, and de-partmental committees, with few standardized criteria and manydiffering procedures. Some data were available from public sources,however.

An examination of the Provost's List showed 209 individualswere newly hired as of Autumn Quarter 1969. Of there, 79;i; (165)

were men, 21 (44) were women. Excluding Home Economics, Nursing,and Physical Education, the fioures were 89 (164) men, 11";; (20)

women. The "new hires" were distributed amono the academic ranks as

follows:jo of ;lc of

Rank women men men

Full Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

Instructor

Lecturer

2

0

13

24

544

4,55-1

0.00

29.54

1-14.55L

11L.34.09

29

98

1765.91

10165

--,

6.711L-83.54

17.07

59.75,

10.371,1 16.46

6.09)100.00'

i

.11.36/100.00

Women were hired, on the averape,omrank lower than were men.Similarly, a study of psychology departments nationwide uncoveredthe same pattern. Heads of 115 psychology departments read pare -nraphs describing job applicants with either male or female names,rated the candidates according to their desirability, and indicatedat what level they would be offered a position. The pairs of de-

Jacquelyn A. Hetf4eld and Carolyn G. Van Aken, eds. ':omen

and the Scientific "rofession (Cambridge, Mass 1965), o. 63.Quoted in inieenrt of the Committee on Discrimination Against 4emenFaculty," Fdrnerd Alumnae (Suring 1970), pp. 12-13.

scriptions were identical except for the applicant's sex. Womenwere offered lower levels of appointment than men for 7 of para-graphs and were rated less desirable for 6 of 6 paragraphs.'

Since decisions regarding hirino rest in the hands of indivi-duals who may act on the basis of personal opinions or prejudices,qualified women may be excluded because of myth more often than instructured situations.

1. Myth: Numbers of PhDs goino to women don't matter sincewomen don't use their degrees.

Reality: A 1970 study of 1,979 women ten years afterthey received their degrees showed that 91, wereworking, 81% full-time, and 794 had not inter-rupted their careers durin,oAhe decade. In con-

only 69 of the merinre working full time..°

2. Myth: Women are unstable: they pet sick (preonant),quit their jobs more often than men.

Reality: According to the 1968 figures of the Depart-ment of Labor Women's Bureau, the sick-leae (in-cluding pregnancy leave) and turnover rates forwomen are in fact slightly lower than thRse pCmen with the same occupation and incnme.'

Other studies have concluded that the moretraining a woman receives and the better her job,the more likely she will be working full tiro,even if she has children.1U Academic women are'also more likely to remain single, and to havesmall families if they do marry.

Myths can be reversed to fit the situation. One woman told eninterviewer that she had been offered positions by other universi-ties but had turned them down in favor of long -term involvement.with N. A male colleague criticized her decision, saying: "Youwomen are so immobile. You get somewhere and stay there foravec."

In another university it was found that department chairmen

7 Linda Fidell, "Empirical Verification of Sex Discriminationin Hiring. Practices in Psychology," (in oress, American Psycholc7ist,.Described in "Women in Psychology, A Fact Sheet Prepared by thcAssociation for Women Psychologists," September 1970.

'Helen Astin, The 'Woman Doctorae, 1970, quoted by lalcolm J.Scully, ".roman in HiE77717ii7FR371 Challenoino the Status Quo," TaeChronicle of Higher Education (February 9. 1970), pp. 2-5.

9racts About :Jomen s iTbse-teeism and Labor Turnover, August 1=Ai.lOsen rote 8.

n and the Scientific Profession, p. 75 and Womanpower,National Hanpower Council. (New York, 19::.:7), c.

did not consider out of town married women on the assumption thattheir husbands would not move; they hesitated to offer an appoint-ment to a woman whose husband was an academic unless a position wasready for him, a practice not followed in the reverse situation.They were also concerned that the wife might make more money thanher husband.lz

An important area where sex discrimination appears is the in-formal and sometimes semi-secret "grapevine" of job informationthat extends from department to department across the country. "Thecliche opening, 'Do you know a good man for the job?' results incontinuous but .largely unconscious discrimination against women."1'The"grapevine" is largely based on friendship; "...because men gen-erally have other men as frineds, and because women are such a smallproportion of any profession that their communication networks areusually inadequate, predominant use of informal channels for re-crui,tment and other professional activity will leave woman at a ser-ious disadvantaee."14 Many ulomen's groups are demanding adherenceto the Office of Federal Contract Compliance's stipulation that alljob openings be openly advertised to insure equal access; this iseven more necessary at the present, when an oversupply of PhD's fur -thormilitates against the hiring of women.

D. Promotion

As with hiring, only limited research was possible in the area:if promotion due to lack of public information. What data wereavailable proved very suggestive.

The Faculty Index in the 197072 Bulletin includes the followinginformation after every name: date of hies, date of last promotion,current position, degrees with dates earned, and the institutiongranti no last-named degree. The number of years to promotion couldnot be computed for full and associate professors, since the intervalbetween date of hire and date of lest promotion may have includedone or more interim promotions. Therefore, analysis was limited toindividuals with PhD's who held the rank of assistant professor in1969-7(1 (excluding visiting, actielq , affiliate, and research faculty).The tables below show number of years before promotion by sex, con-trolling for whether: faculty member came with or without PhD and foracademic rank at which faculty member was hired. They all indicatethat, at this level, female faculty wait about twice as long beforepromotion as male faculty.

12womon in the University_ of Chicano: Report of the Committeeon Unieereity I.ay 1, 1V712, e. 18.--7"7enn eutherlene Harris, Testimony Before the Special House

Subcommittee on Cducatioe, June 16, 1970.14,Vomen in the eniversitv of Chicano, p. 113, note to o. 4.

1. Hired below rank of assistant professor

a. without PhD (promoted after PhD earned)--17 men, 6 women.Average time between degree completion and promotionto assistant professor:

women = 3.67 yearsmen = 1.12 years

b, with PhD--41 men, 14 women.Average time between date of hire and promotionto assistant professor:

women = 4.57 yearsmen = 2.52 years

2. Hired as assistant professor

a. without PhD--30 men, 2 women.b. with PhD--250 men, 22 women.

3. Average time at assistant professor rank since hire orpromotion:

a. for those with PhD at date of hire:women = 2.S9 years

men = 1.76 years

b. for all individuals (for those hired without the ohD,years renresent years since decree W3S completed):

women = 2,90 yearsmen = 1.69 years

Important bases for promotion at major universities, such asUW, are productivity measured by number,of publications, and oresencoof job offers from other institutions.1° Three reasons, therefore,for the association between sex and length of time for promotionshown above might be:

1, Women publish less.2, Women receive fewer outside offers.3, '. women experience discrimination in promotions at this

University,

Date were not available during this investioation to ascertainthe relative import=,mcP oF the filet two factors at UW, it is Dos_sitle, however, to comment on the relative likblihood and basis ofeach or these alternatives. 'With respect to publication, previous

15-Whether publication should be of heavy significance in asses-sing an individual's professional ouality and whether nreater weightshould be given to teachine .ability and social contributions are dis-cussions not within the scope of this report. It will be assumedthat publication is a valid criterion for promotion.

research sheds light on differences by sax: Simon, Clark, and Gal-way carried out oroductivity investioation on a nationwide basisand discovered that married women PhD's employed full-time publishedslightly more than men PhDls16 Moreover, in a 1969 study of 600academicians on graduate faculties, it was found that sex accountedfor 1'-; or less of the variance in academic productivity in three

There is reason to believe that some of this very small dif-ference in productivity might be attributable to discrimination bythose who evaluate articles submitted for publication where eval-uation is not anonymous. In a recent study, identical professionalarticles from each of six fields were collated into two booklets- -one under men's names, the other under women's--and submitted forreview and criticism. It was found that the same article receivedsionificantly lower retinas when it was attributed to a female author,even when the articles were in "momen's fields" such as dieteticsand elementary school education.18

Another reason for difference in productivity may be thatwomen are less likely to be nominated to Graduate Faculty statusand therefore do not have the assistance of ereduate students intheir research orojects.

"Recent analysis...of the careers of men and women holdingPhD's further underlines share differences in escendino the academicladder to a full professorshiet confinino attention to men and womenwho have spent twenty years in academia and who hold PhD's in thesocial sciences, Harmon shows that 90';:: of the men had reeched a fullprofessorship, something achieved by only of the single womenand 41 of the married women. It is also clear from these data thatit is sex and not the special situation or responsibilities of mar-ried women that makes the oreatest difference in career edvencsnont."-Further research on women faculty at n can utilize vitae filed withcollege deans to investiocte whether a similar pattern exiets here,whether delayed female promotions are due to lower productivity orfewer outside offers. If longer waits for female faculty promotionare due to less frequent outside offers, the women faculty face apeculiar problem: because of sex discrimination at other universities,women are less likely to receive outside offers, and thus find a.secondary discrimination in promotion here.

1,C2Quoted by Graham, "'!eomee in Academe", n. 1286.l(Pearsonian re.13 for math and political science, ree.G3 for

chemistry. L.L. Hardens, The Serie) Context of Scientific '1.ork, un-published doctoral dissertation, University or eisconsin, itadison, 13-7

18Research by Philip Coldberg in 1966; quoted by SerXra L. andDaryl J. Fern in "Case Study of a e1onconecious Ideology: Training theeomen to Know Her Place." Geliefs, Attitudee and Human Affairs,ed. 0.,tem,(t'3elmont Celiforrie, 1(.7777

1")Alica S. Roeei, "Credles, Jote, or RDE,k,;," Atlantic Thnthlv,(rHarch, iuottion distribui:ec! hy yjomenit,: Equity Leru,==,

in na,..ohlet Dicrimination in UnivorEitic!:. Collr!es."

E. Salary

Inspection of an anonymous computer run of academic personnelsalaries as of May 29, 1970 provided perhaps the most revealingdata for this report. All figures which appear below and in Tables11 and 1i have been controlled for full-time employment, and repre-sent monthly incomes.

All-universityacademic per-sonnel (facplty,subfacultylu

menyrs. mean

salary

womenave. yrs.at UW

mean 'ave.salary at UW

X, ofmale

administration): 51265.65 OM MO $ 929..98 73 OM OM

Teachino Faculty 1607.50 11 1181.36 73 11

Deans 2534.21 -- 2167.00 86 Om 00

Department Chm. 2272.40 -- 1821.66 80

Ranks: (STF)Full Prof. 2068.86 16 1688.52 82 20

Assoc. Prof. 1500.08 12 1336.39 89 19

Asst. Prof. 1237.68 5 1164.88 94 8

Instructor 1137.48 3 865.66 76 5

Lecturer 1133.22 8 1025.31 7/q0 9

mean.rfacultysalary

ArchitectureArts it Sciences

Salaries by. Schools and Colleges

salarysubfac.

$ 983.15

men women

(mo.)

*21

mean salaryincl. subfac.

$1314.74

mean faculty meansalary (mo.) incl.

-217.81

Humanities 51445.96 1266.81 $1239.09 1037.58Soc. Sci. 1646.29 1373.87 1225.80 904.58Natural Sci. 1668.28 1388.79 1249.95 879.58

Business Adm. 1696.79 1482.18 1157.42 1157.42Education 1524.21 1378.56 1122.98 1055.24Engineering * 1661.96 -28.39 1436.00

20 TAs, RAs, other pre-doctoral appointments.211he Provost's Office has asked that nothing be published

which would isolate an individual's salary; for that reason, whe e; .

,,, ...

only one person is employed in a category, the opposite sex's 7 el

is replaced by an asterisk (*) and the difference is printed. Inthe following breakdown . by academic tank,where only two individuals are employed in a category, the symbol(a) replaces "range of salaries."

Fisheries 1613.15 1540.46 Oa MO UN/ 1040.00forest Res. 1503.79 1444.99 00 1M OW

Librarianship 1463.33 1463.33 1333.21 1267.55Law 2177.09 2188.45 1305.00 1305.00Public Affairs 1862.18 1682.61 725,00Health Sciences

Pharmacy 1615.00 -177.00 1029.20Social Work 1543.00 1579.34 1455.93 1439.17Medicine 1735.69 1396.52 1134.79 894,75Dentistry 1506.86 1323.47 1078.05 1002.08Nursing 1598.73 1598.73 979.70 9c'2.30

Salaries Academic Rank excludino deans)

Full Prof.

meansalary

meneve yrsat UW

meansalary

womenave y17.9

at UjJrange range

Arch. 'i2010.92 2054-1650 14 I. ON ILO MO PPE Oa MO INN

A & S 2095.76 3264-1392 16 11753.27 2167-1335 198A 2043.50 3234-1556 16 - - -Ed 2150-1475 12 -19.59 28Engin. 1993.64 3000-1470 14Fish 1083.80 2084-1400 13 /11= OM

FR 1761.13 2005-1510 12 II. SW NM* tam

Lib 14 -316.00 23Comn.Sci 2542.46 3112-1752 11 On V. one om

Pub Aff 2178.00 2700-1750 10 WM OS Oda C. 1100, 11.1, IMA Ms al.

HS:Phm,red

1877.802140.09

2010-16164054-1000

2415

ea0 11

MVVVO mt

OM. Ono- _Dent 1846.85 2737-1500 14 1125,00 3 17Nurs 1C09.00 2221-1265 17SW 1843.55 1969-1614 13 1737.00 1860-1614 23

Assoc. Prof, (none in Pharmacy)Arch 1487.78 1833-1338 10 Ilia le IMP Oa

A & S 1432.67' 2334-1028 11 1350.47 1657 -860 13BA 6 -295,95 24Ed 1581.18 1944-1239 8 1392.22 1560 -1210 14Engin 13 +103.63 9Fish 1588.36 1724-1244 7 Mob .111.. Oft W011m

FR 1305.01 1504-1017 7 OW OM WO /MB ,1110Vm.

Lib 4 -209.00 4

CS 1612.94 1835-1760 13 gelaipMem 0-0.10mONDM

Law 4 -454.50 3PA ono man 8HSI

Mod 3571-1084 8 -441-80 29Dent 2042-1541 15 -1;9.69 11

Nurs 1929.09 2120-1910 5 1220.70 1412-972 12SW 1510.30 2250-1125 6 1416.39 1534-1242 11

Asst. Prof.-7711-71227.96 1284-1113 4 ---- ---- ----

A & S 1173.21 1469 -900 4 1153.63 1313-958 6

BA 1416.75 1523-1334 3 ---- ---- - -..-

Ed 1350.75 1600-1072 5 1335.75 1542-1160 2

Engin 1256.97 1794-988 6 ---- ---- ----Fish 1097.66 1192-1028 2 ---- ---- - .. de.

FR 1174.00 1204-1130 5 ---- ---- - - --

Lib 1269.75 1331-1200 3 1158.00 0 4

CSone man 1 ---_ - - .. ma

Law * 1650-1097 2 -257.00 3

PA one man 4 ---- ---- -.._-

HS:Phm 1340.66 1396-1254 4 ..--- ----Med 1351.76 2841-125 4 1362.93 2330-545 aDent 1265.63 1543-460 4 ---- _---Nurs +585.35 1 * 1159-370 7

SW 1199.66 1294-1117 4 ---- - - - _ ....or .. ast

Instructor (none in BA, Fish, FR, CS, Phm, PA, Ed, Lib)Arch one man 3 ---- -_-- - - -_

A & S 1015.76 1167-778 3 982.41 1112.50 77B 3

Engin one man 4 ---- __-- --....

HS:Ned 1238.90 2105-034 2 1070.52 1167-975 4

Dent 1075.75 1250-887 2 833.42 973-750 6

Nurs 1461.88 1668-1250 2 823.52 943,764 4

SW---_ -_-- ---- one woman ?

LeLtur_ er (none in----__Arcn *

CS, Law, and1594-929

Dent)2 -58.02 1

A S 1135.50 2021-720 10 1017.50 14;0-750 8

BA 1113.55 1417-840 2 1086.80 1334-1000 2

Ed 1054.96 1580-818 4 1129.68 1158 -092 3

Engin 1052.11 1562-525 5 ---- ---- ----Fish one man ---- ---- _--_FRone man 3 ---- ---- ----Lib---- ---... one woman 1

PAone man 5 _--- ---- ----HS:

Phm ---- ---- --_- one woman ?Ned 1004.00 1588-578 9 096.72 1026-703 7

Nurs ---- ---_ on woman (0

SW 1110.83 1565-1000 2 1225.38 1400-1116 2

ht. COW.r(.4VN61.

FirY F Ac As

'1674

1 et 1/6 TABU,: 12.

INMEN S SALAMEt; GiteVr AND RNNICItailEACAAD ?O.:6.ES et- itioisSillnitY CvicIt1 Co:Ca liNkl th. (KN50/111r1 IS (511ILINI I)-s it et %iota tC6 j

eCile.1:;Tvii:: CS Ilk l'itijsevij T 11,1tv1i tt&fl.1CM1L oulizy,)

;t0(11:5

ISO -

C C

6

-msLE 13

MEAN AvErsASC AtNIHLY 5ALAMEs- 6Y iZANK AND SE'x (soUricr% ACtiDrAlic fEOSONNELSAL-ti traTER gUN As DP nunl 2A, fq-tc)

Atc8,.64,

Itch ci, 5t)

14,81.5Z

r" -,-,,. ...-.... ,

...-

,-....

.... .., A, .IA;;,. 111 tty

FtlecLi,/

I t: 0 c S

I 237. tS

1;tc>4.SS 33.22.

11131,

loe.5.

113.7.qE

1165. 6 b

-

It appears from the raw data that those persons holding double(joint) appointments receive slinhtly higher total salaries. Womenhold fewer of these double appointments (membership on the fac0Itiesof two departments, schools, or colleges) than do men. As of AutumnQuarter 1969, 89% of double appointments went to men (62/13); 5 ofthe 8 women were in Home Economics or Nursing.

F. Channeled Fields

Certain areas of study, primarily service fields and appliedsocial science, are traditionally considered "women's professions."At UW there are seven: Librarianship (88ya of oraduate students arewomen), Social Work (61%), Home Economics (100),, Nursing (98;L),Women's Physical Education 000%), Education (50M, and Dental Hy-giene (100). Nevertheless, men outnumber women on the facultiesof Librarianship, Social Work, and Education, where they also occupythe daanships.

Dept. Fm w

Ac Asm w m w m w M W

w'"/.)

Dental Hygiene 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 100 6

Education 19 1 21 5 22 5 0 1 1 0 63 64 12 16 75

Home Economics 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 3 0 6 0 0 22 100 22

Librarianship 2 1 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 6 55 5 _I 45 11

Nursing 0 5 1 12' 3 25 0 41 0 0 4 5 84 95 08

PE-Women 0 3 0 5 1 2 0 3 0 0 1 7 13 93 14

13E-...1;,en221 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 n o o 0 10

Social Work 1 3 15 6 10 3 p 0 n 0 36 75 12 25

TO= 17127; 7. --e7 '97.T.f 47 177 77-27u 0 53

F Ac As:1

All-U fatal_ 683 32 535 68 592 98 103 72 47 40 1960 310 227minus 32 16 45 34 41 45 0 53 2 6 120 154 ?7,:.

651 16 4917 77i 551 n 10S 19 s 34 1840 156 -iT,TT

All-U 96 4 89 11 86 14 59 41 54 46 86 14

Corrected % 98 2 93 7 91 9 84 16 57 43 92 8

22In order to obtain equitable percentages, the channeled fieldfor men is inclocd here.

The difference in percentages above shows that if"charncludfields" (fields into which women are directed) are subtracted, theextent of women's academic participation at Lie) is substanitallylimited.

G.Positions of Pcwer

Women constitute of the faculty. Accodine to the Direc-tory of the University Senate 1969-70 and the Provost's List, fee-ulty women are distributed in opsitions of power as follows:

m w

1. Faculty Senatea. Executive Committee 16 2

b. Pembership of Senate 117 12 (7 in channeled fields)c. Committee Chairmen 3 (ali in channeled fields)d. Committee rembershio'-

e2 (1 term expires in 1970)

Women constitute 9,31;; of Senate membership,13.33 of Senete Corienittee membership.

2. Faculty Councila. Chairmen 1 (term exeires 1970)b. riambership 49 2 (both terms exnire in 1;7:-:

Women constitute :3.rt,2:: o7 the Faculty L:ouncilmembership, filth ;will 10.9e, of all annlieDtionsand recommendations to this body tvera for lomen,(1969-70;Ofeioe,pf University Committees)

3. Department Chalemen

4. Deans

5. Associate Deans

85 3 (all in channeled fields)

15 1 (Nursing)

26 2 (1 in Nursing)

6. Assistant Deans 10 1 (Nursing)136 7 = 4.59

without channeled fields = ...,

rr,'oa -nCom and Srncil

As the Ouletih exoleine, "Some rE?F:earch

cod rencral sinnificc:mLie in all cr many fi.21d: (7)

fr-,owindu.e nreyoncuL th:! univer7,ity." Women are rvicrte1.CMOMQ the administrFltos of those in a croecrtion or 3.1115,4

Nu mEmbership liste mere avzIflabls for 6 ad hoc teemmitteef,and sOcor:;:ilittes.

1,1 w

Exectutive Directors 1 0Directors 30 2

Associate Directors 6 0

Assistant Directors 8 0

Supervisors 1 0ilanagors 2 0Administrators 1 0

50 7

I. Nepotism and Part-Time Emnloy_Tent

A reoular complaint of women in academic lift concerns thepunitive effect of nepotism rules; aiven the assumption of our societothat it is acceptable for husbands to out their careers fj_rst, butnot for wives to do the same, nepotism rules nearly alwayo mean thatthe wife, not the husband, is denied employment. UYJ's "enotismStatement" reads as follows (Statement quoted in full):

In the pppointment of its faculty and staff membersthe University seeks those persons most qualified tofulfill the institution's teachino, research, and ser-vice obligations,

Accordinoly, members of the same family may be appon-ted to University faculty and staff positions when it hasbeen determined that they are the most qualified candi-dates for the positions.

The University recoonizes, however, that tocre F!7'2certain circumstances when memOers of the sz,:se Familyshould not be eopointed in oroer to nrecludoD any emoar-rassment or potential conflicts f'or the institution, 6he

departments, or the individual faculty or staff member.Therefore, members of the same Family should not be em-ployed: (a) in the same department or under the directionof the cme faculty member or department head: (b) whereone of the family mombe:,:c may suoervise or make recommond-ations regarOino the appointment details of the other,or have access to confidential material concerning theother; (c) or when one member of the family holds amajor administrative position.

The above restrictions apply to any parent-child,spouse, siblino, or in -law relationship.

Although these limitations are primarily directed tono:manent faculty and oteff aonoint7ents, they are alsoapplicable to part-timi,, or temoor7oy appointoents includ-ino wtudent emplpyLent.

Exceptions to the above restrictions may be requestedwhen critica=l services of an individual are involved.There is, however, no commitment that an exception, once°ranted, will not be withdrawn upon renular review.

In requesting an exception to the above ruling, usethe University form U'A-1020 rleuuest for Anorovel to Er,-nloz_Hnder the ci-lnot .sm Rule. !-iequest for a waiver ofthe nepotism rule requires approval of the Vice- Presi-dent for Academic Affairs. Those involving a member ofthe staff as either the applicant or the rel&_ive requirea recommendation from the Dirr-ictor of Personnel Servicesbefore they are submitted to the Vice-President for Aca-demic Affairs.

Twenty of the twenty-three faculty exceptions oranted topairs of people on campus as of Aucust 3, 1970, were to marriedcouples. In every one of these twenty cases, the wife is in arank below her husband, and with one exception Instructor) thewives are In positions without access to tenure 3 Research Associates,8 Lecturers, 2 Associates, 1 Research Instructor, 1 Assistant,1 Assistant 'Professor without tenure, 2 in "actinq" appointments,1 part-time Instructor; altuoether b of the twenty --.nonintmentsare oart-t,ime).

riooardless of what the !6Dnotism AJle was intended to accomn-iih, its uresent ofi'uot is cateeersically 'LL) o;!clude ueenin on thebasis of their family relationships without considaratdch for theirindividual abilities. This constitutes'an innouitable and discrim-inatory situation, inconsistent with the ohilosoohy of nllowinnfor maximum individual develonment and ooportonity.

Another administrative obstacle to nronotion and tenure forwomen is the nert-time appointment. Eleven percent of part-tireappointments at U. are filled by women. Ann :iutnerlanq Herrisfound that in most universities the men who hold cart -time anf:oint-ments wore employed full-time somewhere else, while for most worr.ontha fart -tiro appointment was the only position held. She foundthat women with Dart -tine positions carry hea.vior loads than menin the same situation, and that some teach as many hours as roc-ular faculty. "The administrations and faculties of universitiesknow, in facts that academic con often marry acemic women, andthat foulty vos provide a nood chtive labor ikr?t, seldom Smoosition to tho full-time position tht they ervo hocusethey cannot thri;:i:Itsn to lu?.ve 00 elsewhaIn....Anrt From worsenworkinn in thfl adihistration, port-ti7Yi women f,,,culty are, I be-lieve, the (.;o!:it finnoially exoloited rauo o 'AG[;101-! in academe.The worT.an at the Univnrsty of 1-2ittctJuren ,:orkod out that by wofk-ino for lower salaries than those f.,en with their oualifiations ^7qould receive, they were saving the University :2,b110,L3K! a year."'

Tastionv n. 2a.

At lY:1 part-time Fopointments do not have the status or frinoebenefits of full-time appointments, are usually without oresumotionof tenure, and are often poorly paid. It appears also that if anindividual is in an otherwise insecure position ("acting," "visitin:"appointments) a full-time job may be chanced to part-time in thenext yearly contract whether or not the individOal wishes such acut.

III. STAFF WOMEN

The following study is based on payroll data obtained fromthe Universi'c: in the form of a computer run. Individual salaryand date of hire were listed within each occupational code, with-out reference to name, and with a breakdown by sex.

Staff personnel are oenerally thought of as belonging to twocategoriesexemot staff and classified staff. For purposes ofclarity this report includes a third, which is referrer to as aca-demic staff, and which conaists of all positions not specificallyassigned to exemot or classified staff.

Tables 1 and 2 apply to all occupational codes within exemptand classified staff, and bear no reference to academic staff. InTable 10 ,all etaff classifications are included.

Promotional information was not available in computerizedform, thus it was necessary to gather such information manually.This was done on a selected basis in the case of classified staff,and findings are included in that section.

A. Exempt Staff

Positions within the exempt staff represent those permanentmonthly classifications which are exempted from coveraoe under theHigher Education Personnel Law (a state-wide civil service syetem)and include the following: executive heads of major administrativedivisions; persons appointed to professional research positions(i.e. physicists, oceanographers); persons appointed to positionsinvolving continuing education activities.

For budgetary purposes, each exempt staff position has beenassigned an occupational code of the series one-thousand, with num-bers ranging from 1001 to 1998, There are within this classification':,however, only 211 separate codas or oositions. Table 3 shows over-all income average for the 1000 series; Table 4 illustrates the dis-tribution of women and men within the 1000 series; and Table 5 com-pares salary and time in service for those positions in which bothwomen and men work.

When compared with the classified staff, it is clear that ex-empt staff positions arc far more lucrative, end in terms or thebureaucratic hierarchy are second lisrom the top. Yet women consti-tute only 23% of this upper level.'

1Those considered to be at the "too" of the bureaucratic hier-archy are positions within academic administration,which constitutesone section of academic staff. For comparison see Tables 2 and 10.

TABLE 1

Average Salary and Time in Service--Exempt and Classified Staff(Source: computer run of staff salaries as of May 29, 1970 ob-tained from the Provost's Office and the. Office of Personnel Services)

Women:

men:

Employee Mean Average Average TimeCount Salary (Mo.) in Service

3,482.17 $555.65

2,439.83 777.73

(TABLE 2 on separate page)

5 years

4 years

TABLE 3

..=.....1Average Salary and Time in Service--Total Codes 1000 Series(Source: computer run of staff salaries as of May 29, 1970.)

Mean Average Average Time,Salary8 in Service'

Women: $ 804.57 7 years

Men: 1090.99 5 years

Average monthly salary differential A = S286.42

Average yearly salary differential - = n,437.04

3Empinye count: women = 147.59; men = 492.91; Total = 640.50.Salary averag reflects percent of time.

'Control. factors: (a) Service date of 1969 Figured as one yearregardless of month of entry -- consistent for both man and women.(b) 1970 figured as 0 years (no time) regardless of month of entry--consistent for both men and women. (c) Where no service date wasentered, aver_pe or remaining entries was used--consistent for bothmen and women.

Occ. codex

Series

Ave. mo. salary

all personnel

# women

in series

TAKE 2

Ave. sal-

% women

% women

# men

ary wren

in series total staff in series

Ave. sal- % men in

ary men

series

% men

total staff

1000

$1024.99

147.59

$804.57

23

3492.91

$1090.99

77

21

2000

796.74

217.74

716.74

66

6112.50

952.75

34

4

8000

775.03

00

00

434.90

775.03

100

17

3000

735.01

884.72

698.64

75

23

297.05

843.34

25

13

4000

636.77

203.95

509.00

32

5425.43

698.02

68

17

7000

500.12

463.98

434.68

42

13

645.29

547.25

58

26

5000

486.44

1923.19

486.72

98

50

31.75b

469.77

22

aArranged in descending order of average monthly salary--all exempt and classified staff personnel.

bSalary averages here, as in all other places on the table, reflect percent of time.

It is interesting

to note, however, that 51% of male employees in code series 5000 work less than full time, as comparedto 19%

of female employees.

17-\BLG. 'IDISTI:1(1..41TIco (94)

ektIVAVT SCIAer

7.7:7:47.711.-_-.n 7)1IbbvvIEJA; 1,1c.-N

."1.777..,ttlr77-°Tf_Trrin 1A31A1011,,UNIw

.

.

riAts,)

R60efieOVEttP;d1.1.. tOCE 066 .:.07,16-5

TABLE 5

Salary Differentials in Positions Where Both Women and Men Work(Source: salary computer run as of May 29, 1970.)

TOTAL CODES 211

Total in which both women and men work 37 (17%)

Number in which salary differential exists 18 (48%)

Average years in service:a Women = 10 yearsMen = 5 years

Mean monthly average salary differential M =. $ 259.00b

Mean yearly average salary differential W = 3108.00

Median monthly average salary differential..= 217.00Range: $43.00--$703.00

aFigured for 18 codes where oay differential exists.bgalary figures controlled for 100 time,

By virtue of their exclusion from the civil service system, positronswithin exempt staff are not set forth in permanent Job Descriptions as arethose of the classified staff. Neither is there a constant value placedon these positions in terms of salary. Thus to a great extent the valueof services rendered in any particular position is determined by a sub-jective analysis of the employee's previous work experience, her educationalbackground, and the nonquantitative abilities which she is judged to possess,such as aptitude, commitment, and potential.

Granted that latitude inherent in such a system, it would not beimpossible for the head of a major administrative division simultaneouslyto hire two assistants, giving one of them a higher salary than the other.Such instances are bound to occur, and can perhaps be justified on a limitedindividual basis. It is when such subjective evaluations of the value ofservices rendered can be predicted in line with any categorical qualitypossessed by the employee (such as sex or race) that the situation bearsscrutiny.

B. Classified Staff

The balance of those permanent monthly positions not exempt fromUniversity civil service are designated as members of the classifiedstaff. Within the classified staff there are several types of positions,each of which is assigned a different occupational code series. Theyare as follows: supervisory--2000; professional--3000; technical andscientific--4000; office--5000; maintenance and protective--7000; andskilled trades--8000.

Base salary rates for each classified staff position are set forthin the University Salary Schedule and Compensation Plan. According tothis schedule, each position has a definite starting salary and a salarymaximum which can be reached in a period of from one to five and one-halfyears, depending upon the job. In most cases, the first salary increaseoccurs after six m)nths, and all others at one year intervals. Accordingto the Salary Schedule, "These periodic increments are mandatory, so 1pgas the employee's work performance permits retention in the position."4

Because of the existence of a specific salary scale, with regularlyscheduled pay increases, subjective evaluation as a method of determiningthe value of services rendered is employed less often in classified staffthan in exempt staff. That element is interjected only in the case of meritand special merit increases, which may be awarded when the employer feelsthe employee has performed her job in a manner deserving of special attentionand reward.

Occupational codes in which both men and women work, and in which apay differential exists are illustrated in Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9. It

should be noted that the codes indicated as revealing a pay differentialrefer only to those in which women have a longer time in service.

2Salary Schedule and Compensation Plan for Staff Employees,July 1, 1970, p. 23.

TABLE 6

2000 Series

TOTAL CODES 70

Total in which both men and women work 8M

Number in which a salary differential exists W

Mean monthly average differential $25.00

TABLE 7

3000 Series

TOTAL CODES 110

Total in which both men and women work 38M

Number in which a salary differential exists W 2

Mean monthly average differential $78.00

TABLE 8

4000 Series

TOTAL CODES 103

Total in which both men and women work 30M

Number in which a salary differential exists W 4

Mean monthly average differential $72.00

TABLE 9

7000 Series

TOTAL CODES 84

Total in which both men and women work 22M

Number in which a salary differential exists W 6

Mean monthly average differential $36.00

Table 10 illustrates the distribution of staff women over all class-ifications, including exempt and academic staff. is clear that womenare concentrated in low paying clerical positions (50% when library positionsare excluded, 49.5% when included), that they are totally absent from senioradministrative positions represented by academic staff, and are only sparselyrepresented in exempt staff positions (although women constitute 23% ofexempt staff, only 3% of total staff women are employed in that category asopposed to 21% of total staff men).

Promotions

A study of classified staff promotional practice was conducted, comparingthe promotional history of 227 women and '282 men in 180 occupational codeswithin the 2000 and 4000 series. An attempt was made to select occupationalcodes in which both women and men work. This situation occurs often in the2000 and 4000 series, thus accounting for that choice.

Of the 509 individual cases studied, it was found that there is anaverage difference of approximately 4 months between pay increases for menand women, and an average rate-of-increase difference amounting to $6.67per increment. This means that a male employee in the 2000 or 4000 seriescan expect to be reviewed for a salary adjustment approximately 4 monthsearlier than his female co-worker, and that he will receive $6.67 more thanshe.

C. Academic Staff

As used in this report, the classification of academic staff refersto the following two areas: academic administration (which inclydes suchsenior administrative positions as President and Vice Presidents ), and theLibrary (which includes the Director, Associate and Assistant Directors,plus several levels of professional librarians.

Table 10 shows the salary averages and distribution of women and menwithin the academic staff excluding librarians. Table 11 indicates thenumber and salary of women and men in academic staff including and excludinglibrarians.

Because positions in academic administration represent the top of theadministrative hierarchy in terms of salary and prestige, and becausewomen are singularly lacking in that category, it was considered necessaryto deal with academic administration apart from library positions, whichrepresent a profession traditionally dominated by women.

Another consideration prompted the separate treatment of librarypositions. In March, 1970, the Women's Commission conducted a study ofhiring and promotional practices at the University Library (Law Librarynot included). The tables which appear in this report were prepared frominformation secured at that time from the library administration.

3Deans and Academic Department Chairmen not included; see Chapter II.

Our inquiry in March began out of concern over the fact that none ofthe top administrative positions in the library were filled by women. As

indicated in Table 12, we subsequently found that not only are women absentfrom directorship positions, but also that as the classification levelincreases, the percentage of women within those positions decreases, andas the classification level increases, the percentage of men increasescorrespondingly.

TABLE 10

Distribution of Women and Men over Classified,Staff

WOMEN

Exempt and Academic

MEN

Class.or Code

Percentage AverageTotal Staff Salary.

Class.or Code

PercentageTotal Staff

AverageSalary

5000 50 $486.72 7000 26 $547.25

3000 23 698.64 1000 21 1090.99

7000 13 434.68 BODO 17 775.03

2000 6 716.74 4000 17 698.02

4000 5 509.00 3000 13 843.343 1-304 ,57

1000 -Ilk 4- 2000 4 952.74

A.S.a 0 -0- A.S. 1 2237.00

8000 0 -0- 5000 1 469.77

aLibrary positions not included in this table. When Librarypositions are included, perc6ntaoe of women in total staff is asfollows: 5000 series = 49.55-1; 3000 = 22.5; 7000 = 12.0; 2000 = 6.0;4000 = 5.0; 1000 = 3.0; A.S. = 2.0; 8000 = 0.0.

TABLE 11

Salary Averages -- Academic Staff

Employee CountIncluding Library Salary Average (Mo.)

Men: 4B $1615.00

Women 80 752.00

Employee CountExcludino Library alIEL2laza2212111

Men: 23 V237.00

Women: -0-

Source: salary computer run as of May 19, 1970.

TABLE 12

Distribution of Women and Men in Library Positions

WOMEN MEN

EmployeeCount

Percentof Total

EmployeeCount

Percentof Total

Librarian I 10 13 2 10

Librarian II 37 50 4 21

Librarian III 22 29 4 21

Librarian IV 4 05 3 16

' Librarian V 2 03 6 32100 100

Source: Director of Libraries

TABLE 13

Yearly Average and Time in Service--Library Positions(Source: Director of Libraries)

WOMEN MEN

AverageYrs. inService Average

Yrs. inService

Librarian I $ 7814 1 $7812 12

Librarian II 8429 3 8835 4

Librarian III 10,068 15 10,665 7

Librarian IV 11,991 23 12,440 16

Librarian V 11,902 3 14,810 15

IV. CONCLUSION

The University of Washington should appoint a senior admin-istrator and separate department to keep under continuous reviewthe status of women on this campus. This would in effect be adepartment-as-lobbyist for the cause of women at this institution.The department would be concerned with matters such as faculty andstaff salary differentials, the appointment of women in signifi-cant numbers to senior faculty and administrative posts, a reviewof recruitment and hiring procedures, the promotion of qualifiedwomen to staff, faculty, and administrative positions reflectingtheir credentials and experience, and a management training programto allow staff women in low positions upward mobility in accor-dance with their talents and education.

Immediate changes must be made if women are to have trulyequal access to the opportunities of this University, anc changesdo not usually come, in this or in other institutions , simplyon the basis of good will. Definite steps must be taken to assurethat the important alterations will in fact take place; they arenot likely to be taken un.Less some person and some department re-cognize that the responsibility for change is theirs.