Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:58:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: aaswlist
stsci.edu
Cc: aaswomenstsci.edu
Subject: AASWOMEN for 05/04/01 & 05/11/01
AAS Committee on the Status of Women
Weekly issue of 05/04/01 & 05/11/01, eds. Meg Urry & Patricia Knezek
This week's issues:
1. An article on Margaret Geller's resignation from Harvard University in
The Chronicle of Higher Education
2. Further comments on CSWA goals and Kelle Cruz's posting on 4/20/01 and
Amanda Baker's posting on 4/27/01
3. Another link to information about careers in astronomy (original posting
4/27/01)
4. Additional information on available learning tools in physics and
astronomy aimed at children around 12 years old (original request posted
4/20/01)
5. To submit to, subscribe to, or unsubscribe from AASWOMEN (repeat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An article on Margaret Geller's resignation from Harvard University in
The Chronicle of Higher Education
From: Laura Kay kayastro.columbia.edu
Friday, May 4, 2001
Noted Harvard U. Astronomer Resigns Over Tenure Dispute
By SCOTT SMALLWOOD
A highly regarded female astronomer at Harvard University --
the first woman on the faculty there to be elected to the
National Academy of Sciences -- has resigned after a
longstanding tenure dispute.
Margaret J. Geller, who has criticized the university for
gender discrimination in its promotion practices, holds a
joint position with the Smithsonian Institution and Harvard.
Her resignation means she will no longer teach undergraduate
courses or be listed as a Harvard professor. She will continue
to work at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
which is based in Cambridge, Mass.
Ms. Geller, who first joined the Harvard faculty as an
assistant professor in 1980, was promoted to professor in
1988, after passing through the same review process as
tenure-track faculty members. But her appointment conferred
only a title, not tenure.
By 1992, she had won a so-called genius grant from the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and had been elected to
the National Academy of Sciences. She approached Jeremy R.
Knowles, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, about her
tenure status. "I asked him to essentially make an honest
woman out of me," she said. When the university didn't change
its position, she said, "I probably should have resigned
then."
Instead, she stayed, growing tired of explaining her situation
and frustrated when the university would portray her as a
tenured female scientist. Harvard, she said, expected her to
have a commitment to the university, but the university wasn't
willing to make the same commitment to her that it makes to
other full professors.
In May 1997, the university offered her a Mallinckrodt chair,
a prestigious endowed professorship given to professors in the
natural sciences and medical school. "I was euphoric because I
finally thought they had come to their senses," she said. As
her students began to plan a celebration, Ms. Geller called
the dean's office to go over the details. She learned that the
appointment would not come with tenure.
The eight male science professors who hold Mallinckrodt chairs
are all tenured. Two other men in the astronomy department
with joint appointments also have tenure or a tenure-like
arrangement, she said.
Ms. Geller simply sat on the offer, neither declining nor
accepting it. "The dean had offered me what I thought I always
wanted, a named chair at a prestigious university, and he
offered it in a way I couldn't accept," she said.
Mr. Knowles issued a statement praising her contributions to
Harvard and expressing regret for her resignation. In the
statement, he said the university and Smithsonian are working
on a plan to provide financial support from Harvard for the
joint faculty members "in the improbable event that the
Smithsonian discontinued funding for these appointments."
"We regret that Professor Geller has decided to resign before
this resolution has been reached," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Further comments on CSWA goals and Kelle Cruz's posting on 4/20/01 and
Amanda Baker's posting on 4/27/01
********
From: K Mead kmeadearthlink.net
Regarding the goals of CSWA, Amanda Baker (4/27/01 issue) talks about
"equality" between the sexes.
The fact is that, as Baker says, women in astronomy are _not_ treated the
same as men; expectations for women are _higher_ than for men. And women are
evaluated, informally and formally, against a higher standard.
There are 3 parts to what follows. First, a commentary on how women are
treated differently than me. Second, a one paragraph personal story. With
those two topics as perspective, I then discuss the higher expectations that
women face.
First a comment about how women are treated unequally. For one thing, women
get less support than men. Ironically, this is partly because support is not
given as freely to those _perceived_ as less talented, and partly because
the men in the field feel more comfortable being supportive of other men.
It's human nature to feel more comfortable with those who are like us. Some
men are simply uncomfortable around women. Remember, scientists (mostly men)
are nerds. Nerds, by definition are less socially adept than the captain of
the soccer team or the president of the student body. Female nerds are
slightly different than male nerds because they have a personality aspect
that allows them to do something that's somewhere between unusual and
socially unacceptable. Male nerds who become scientists are doing something
that's typical for males in our society.
So, in a sense, it's human nature to behave in a certain way. But scientists
working in a professional community have to put aside their personal
preference for a computer terminal to another human being. A professional
maintains a standard of conduct, which includes attention to fairness, even
if that attention and its consequences take the scientist out of his or her
personal comfort zone. The need for individuals to work as a community is
also a requirement of human nature.
As an aside, a little story about myself. Since I always did science, and was
thus always in the gender minority, it took me a long time to gain insight
into how being in a 13% minority effected my psyche and my view of my
abilities. At the Women in Astronomy meeting in 1993 (7 years after my
Ph.D.), I was in the majority for the first time ever as an astronomer. It
was about a 90% majority (Meg can correct me on that number.) I suddenly
realized that I was just like the other people at the meeting! I wasn't a
less capable astronomer, I was just female - _that's_ why I never quite felt
comfortable. To the majority, I was an alien. And I didn't even realize how
much like an alien I felt until I took that trip from Mars to Venus.
Now, finally, back to expectations. Women are not treated equally in
astronomy, they are expected to be better -- intellectually and personally.
Women are expected to be physically attractive, dress well, and have good
personal hygiene. This is not a joke. (I hope it's mildly amusing, but it's
also true.) Do an informal survey for yourself in your department (if it's
a large one) or the next AAS meeting. Notice how many successful men are
rumpled looking. I've never seen Vera Rubin, Margaret Geller or Sydney Wolfe
look rumpled.
A woman's intelligence and talent are not noticed unless they are
exceptional. The median smartness of women in astronomy is greater than
that of men. At the same time they absoutely must be deferential to men. It
is my personal observation that the group of successful female astronomers
is 2 or more sigma more accomplished scientificially (measured even in a
"male" way such as more papers, but particularly noticeable when considering
the quality of papers or ability to communicate verbally.)
But the group of successful women has an astonishingly small dispersion of
personal appearance, personal style and interpersonal skills. A woman must
be smart, tough and attractive without being threatening to men. Women have
to be smart enough to be taken seriously, but not so smart as to make the
men feel inferior. She must be tough but not a bitch. And she must be
interesting to look at, but not sexually threatening or intimidating.
Anyway, the point is that a woman must walk an indescribably fine line
personally and intellectually. Men don't (appear to) have to walk a line at
all. Expectations of women's intellect and behavior are much higher than
men's.
Some women adopt these expectations of other women. This is a useful
adaptation because it validates the expectations of the men who dominate
the community. In turn, the men are more welcoming to these "adaptive"
women. Sometimes these women are even tougher on other women than the men
are. It is frequently the adaptive women who have the view, "no one helped
me succeed in this field, why should I be supportive of other women?" This
view validates that of less-welcoming men, which are historically the people
that are at the top of the hierarchy in the Astronomical community.
These higher expecations of women influence subtle decisions and judgements
that astronomers make of each other. These are the decisions and judgements
that Amanda Baker discussed in her posting. While someone's subconscious
opinion of a woman might be "too nerdy" or "too outspoken" [i.e.not
deferential] they might express this by subtle derision in questioning her
work in a proposal review, or to a colleague or at a meeting. Or in making a
hiring decision, someone might say a man's education is from "stronger"
institutions than a woman's even if they are actually comparable or if the
woman's papers are actually more important. There are countless scientific
excuses, I mean reasons, to give instead of "I'm not comfortable with a
woman."
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathryn Mead
********
From: Anja Andersen anjaastro.uu.se
I would like to comment on Amanda Baker comment!
In response to Amanda Baker's comment I would like to point your attention to
the fact that a danish anthropology study has been made on the point on who
succeeds in physics studies. The institute studied was the Niels Bohr Institute
in Copenhagen and what was found was that the men that did not "fit into the
picture/system of a physics" had a harder time getting a master/Ph.D.-degree
than even women did. It was obvious that women did not fit the picture/system,
so the system tried to be aware of this and at least the women were aware of
this fact. While men were expected to "fit in" just because they were men!
This means that men that are different from what is expected of a standard
physics had many obstacles to tackle and very few managed.
This is in favour of the points raised by Amanda Baker but at the same time I
got very frustrated when I read her comments since I cannot help thinking "do
we really need yet another study to show that women have more disadvantages
than some men in a career path in science??". Whatever the reasons I think
that actions have to be taken - today! We have fire brigades that extinguish
fire without understanding every detail of how the fire arose. Now we have
problems with equality in research careers and it must be possible to find
solutions without waiting to understand every detail of how it has arisen?
If we improve the conditions for women I am convinced that a positive side
effect will be that there will be more room for others also.
I would like to point your attention (and the attention of CSWA) to two
reports which are worth reading regarding the points above. One is from the
Danish Ministry of Research and is titled "Women and Excellence in Research"
and can be found at: http://www.fsk.dk/fsk/publ/women/index.htm The other
report is from the European Union and is called "Promoting excellence through
mainstreaming gender equality" it can be downloaded in pdf format from
http://www.fsk.dk/cgi-bin/theme-list.cgi?theme_id=56626&doc_type=39
Although there are differences between the US and Europe I do think that we
can learn a lot from each other on this point, so please read these reports
before you start a long a time-consuming investigation about if there is a
problem at all!!
Anja C. Andersen, Uppsala University, Sweden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Another link to information about careers in astronomy (original posting
4/27/01)
From: Luisa Rebull luisa.rebulljpl.nasa.gov
Here's my collection of women in astronomy links:
http://irastro.jpl.nasa.gov/~rebull/womensci.html
It includes the links that were posted here and on Kris Sellgren's page,
as well as several more I've collected.
cheers,
Luisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Additional information on available learning tools in physics and
astronomy aimed at children around 12 years old (orignal request posted
4/20/01)
From: Marlene A. Lee groundhoggrrllycos.com
Here's an astronomy book that is "lively" in format and would make good
reading for young adults and adult amateurs (like me):
Title: Get a Grip On Astronomy by Robin Kerrod
Publisher: Time-Life Books ($14.95 US); copyright 1999 by Ivy Press
Limited, 2-3 St. Andrews Place, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 10P England.
ISBN 0-7370-0047-3. According to the book liner notes, Kerrod has authored
a number of children's books and is a fellow of the British Royal
Astronomical Society.
You may want to review a copy and decide for yourself.
Respectfully submitted,
Marlene Lee
McMinnville, Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. To submit to, subscribe to, or unsubscribe from AASWOMEN
To submit to AASWOMEN:
send email to aaswomenstsci.edu
All material sent to that address will be posted unless
you tell us otherwise (including your email address).
To subscribe to AASWOMEN:
send email to majordomostsci.edu, with message in the BODY
subscribe aaswlist yourusername
To unsubscribe to AASWOMEN:
send email to majordomostsci.edu, with message in the BODY
unsubscribe aaswlist yourusername
----------------------------------------------------------------------------