Over-reacting?

“Harvard University appears ready to name the first woman president in its 371-year history — Drew Gilpin Faust, a historian who runs a research institute at the university.” Says the New York Times. In the aftermath of former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers (an economist, interestingly)’s scandal of gender discrimination (“The opposition erupted in part over Dr. Summers suggestion that intrinsic aptitude could help explain why fewer women than men reach the highest ranks of science and math in universities.” NYT), this nomination appears to be an overdose for the damage made. ////////////////////////////// The nomination, along with dozens of other candidates announced in the past December, seems to be Harvard’s gesture of good intension. As J.F.K. said, the crisis is half danger and half opportunity. This might be Harvard’s chance to make a change. It is interesting to see how New York Times writes about this cover story. On one hand, the Times cited many people (especially UPenn’s female president Amy Gutmann)’s positive evaluation of Dr. Faust. On the other hand, it suggested many other candidates declined the nomination for various reasons. The underlying scripts say both Harvard and the Times are playing the game of political correctness, even though they do not dare to say so. ////////////////////////////// I think there are, at lest, two interesting questions involved. First, is this nomination a good thing for a conservative liberal institution like Harvard? For this question, I don’t have much to say since I don’t know its culture. Comparing to the inauguration of Teacher’s College new female president, the Harvard’s decision seems to have much bigger publicity and influence. If the nomination is only a political tactic to deal with the current situation, I doubt the female president will make much a difference to this institution. In any case, it will take time to see what is and will actually happy to this traditionally male-dominated institution. After TC President Furman’s inauguration, I asked couple of male professors in TC about their impression of the new president, they seemed to think that the gender was not the big deal for the new leadership, but the new agenda the president will bring about. ////////////////////////////// Second, is this nomination a good thing for female scholar and leadership in higher education institution? There have been many studies of the labor market within academia, which is highly segregated by institution prestige, geography, control (private vs. public), gender and race. It is well known, even within the same department of institution and controlling for other variables (such as seniority and production), female faculty members expected to receive a salary 15 to 20 percent lower than their male counterparts. In addition, the rate of getting tenure is much lower among female faculty than males, due to multiple reasons (family, finance, alternative job opportunity, and discrimination). In another words, the “voluntary attrition rate” is much higher for female in academia. On top of that, the female leadership is almost invisible in American higher education institutions. The proportion of female administrators and officials declines as one moves upward along the organizational hierarchy in colleges and universities. The past statistics shows that there are more female presidents or vice presidents in community colleges and small liberal arts institutions (single sex college) than in four-year institutions. Therefore, it is not surprising when four of the IVY league institutions put female scholars as their president, Harvard’s nomination still makes a big fuss. ////////////////////////////// I think Harvard’s action is more of a symbolic meaning than a real push to female faculty/administrator’s position in this knowledge industry. From sociological perspective, there is always stratification and mainstreaming within organizations for the purpose of maintaining the existing status quo. If there is no discrimination against female or black or Hispanic faculty members, there will be discrimination based on other criteria (prestige of graduation institution, the prettiness of your spouse, the intelligence of your kids and etc). There is also economic reasoning behind such discrimination, as a way to sorting the market. Although the discrimination might distort the incentives, it is sometimes a cheaper way to achieve equilibrium in long-run under asymmetric information. The alternatives may be government regulation and law, gild, or totally segregated markets for male and female labor. In a third-sector industry like higher education institution, I am not aware which organization’s design is more equal and efficient. In this sense, the academia is no better, or worse, place than any other industry in terms of equalization of members of the community. The faculty governance refers to academic freedom, but it is not a guarantee of equal treatment or equal pay. Because it associates with the freedom of expression and thinking, not one’s rights to pay and promotion. ////////////////////////////// One can not change an institution’s organization culture and management by simply installing a female president. It could only happy when there is equal presentation of female members in academic and non-academic positions within the college. A good example in mind is Barnard College cross the street. The democracy of gender and race will not, or rarely so, be realized in a top-down manner, but will more likely to happy in a bottom-up fashion. (One of the exceptions might be China university reform in 1950s. But I am not sure about the extent to which the reform changed female faculty’s position within institution). Since the isomorphism between higher education institution and the society, one can only expect to see a more “equal” university in a more equal society. ////////////////////////////// Anyway, the Harvard nomination may be too much of a good thing and we have to wait and see what it really means. For my own benefit, I hope Beijing University will have a female president in the near future. Just for a change, ok?