Are family-friendly policies at colleges and universities really in the best interest of women in academe?
That’s the question a Rutgers University administrator — herself the mother of three grown children — raised during a panel at the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education’s annual labor conference on Monday.
Speaking at a session titled “Under the Table: Race and Gender in Promotion and Tenure,” Karen R. Stubaus, associate vice president for academic affairs at Rutgers University, said that family-friendly policies, like allowing women to take time off the tenure clock to care for young children or creating part-time tenure-track appointments, are meant to help young academics. But she is concerned that such benefits may, in fact, hurt them.
That’s because the policies make it too easy for women — almost always the ones to take advantage of such benefits — to slow down their careers, she said. Such steps can delay salary increases, or keep them from moving into administrative positions, she said.
“I worry about women who go on what’s called the mommy track,” Ms. Stubaus said. “Research universities are fairly conservative and still dominated by white males” who didn’t take any breaks on the road to tenure and often sit on tenure and promotion committees, she said.
When looking at the tenure applications of female academics who have temporarily stepped out of the tenure stream, such committee members may question how to count that time out when it comes to research productivity — even though time out is, well, time out and shouldn’t be counted, she said.
Ms. Stubaus, who finished her dissertation while on an unpaid maternity leave for her first child and later had twins, acknowledged the hardships of being a working mother. And despite her remarks, which she billed upfront as “controversial,” she said she could “appreciate this generation of people saying, Why does it have to be so hard?”
However, the environment isn’t what it needs to be for female academics to seek the relief family-friendly policies offer, she said. “I don’t have the confidence that as a society we are there yet.”
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
11 Responses to Family-Friendly Policies May Not Help as Much as They Should, Conference Speaker Says
misstrudy - August 19, 2011 at 10:50 am
Thank you for posting this. I loved it. I teach in a Central American university. In this country, 1950s societal mores and expectations still exist for young women (believe it or not). I have many young middle class female students whose expectations from college are to find and marry a good provider. The labor of trying to get them to visualize something else for their lives, in a very patriarchal society, is daunting. Nevertheless, co-existing with this, there is a growing feminist consciousness among young women–and even young men–and feminism as a social movement has emerged in the wake of hundreds of young women being killed (as in the case of Juarez in Mexico) violently. Here, homicide is generally is met with over 90% impunity; the situation of women in regards to family and societal violence is even more precarious. The dire level of poverty, among the numerous poor, is something we never get to face living in the USA. The majority of its victims are women and children, mostly indigenous, which is another kind of violence in itself. Just imagine the spiral of ethnicity, gender and class going on there. The courage of activists and young women joining forces, across ethnicities and class, to do something about it all is truly inspirational. I am hoping to translate your article in Spanish for my students. There is much to be done yet. Everywhere we go.
spanish_prof - August 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Very nice post, TR.
@chronicle-00846be4750f614b5275284f5d185a41:disqus : I think it is very important to advocate for women’s right all over the world. A word of caution, though: always take into account the local context, don’t import models from the US acritically. Here is an article regarding feminism in Latin America:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011731114350994627.html
and here is an excellent response to some points of the article:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/04/al-jazeera-shocked-because-female-politicians-in-latin-america-do-not-identify-as-feminists-here%E2%80%99s-some-context/#more-3635
sher2824 - August 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm
I also enjoyed the documentary and think it’s particularly important, for university teaching, that Steinem notes the large percentage of youth under age 25 present in the most recent march on Washington shown towards the end of the film. The feminist movement into the realm of youth and girlhood should not be underestimated. Steinem also closes with a provocative quote (I paraphrase) that it’s not necessarily important for today’s generation of young women to know who she is, but to know who they are; a statement I took (of its many messages) as one bespeaking third wave feminist micro-politics.
11144703 - August 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Claire, fine article, but what up with the following sentence?:
“we get a lot on abortion, but no reflection on the severe retraction of abortion rights nationwide”
The U.S. has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. You sound like those who assumed the world would end after the (mild) regulations of PP v. Casey in 1992. Women can get abortions freely up to the point of viability in the hopelessly sexist U.S.
I believe in the right of abortion like you, but no right is unlimited. For example, is a 24 hour waiting period unreasonable? True, some states are pushing for a longer waiting period of 48 or even 72 hours, but I believe the courts will strike them. Some states are pushing for sonograms of the fetus. However, a woman cannot be forced to look at them. And shouldn’t we be giving women scientific options? Or are you one of those crazy creationists?
A woman in the hopelessly sexist U.S. can get an abortion into the 8th month if she invokes Casey’s medical emergency exception which includes a psychological component. Maybe she wants a boy but not a girl. But isn’t that barbaric? Go to the Bodies exhibit in various places around the country. Have you ever seen a 6, 7, or even 8 month fetus as featured in that exhibition? Are there fetal rights–the right of a potential human–that should be considered in regulating abortion, just as non-human animal rights are greatly respected by progressives? Or should fetus be taken out of a body as if one is pulling a tooth?
Your comment on the “severe retraction” of abortion rights in the hopelessly sexist U.S. has no merit. Maybe I’m overlooking something. If so, I’d like to be informed of the severity of the retractions happening now in the hopelessly sexist U.S.
Otherwise, Claire, fine article.
tenured_radical - August 23, 2011 at 10:44 am
It is simply not true that US abortion laws are the most liberal in the world, although it is true that there are countries that are far more restrictive. I think what you are overlooking is that a woman’s right to an abortion is radically restricted by her ability to pay, particularly since now no federal dollars can be used for abortion and many state legislatures have also banned the use of state funds for abortion. Prominently, no woman in the military can get an abortion in a military hospital, which means that any woman deployed to a combat zone must pay her own way to a hospital that will give her an abortion at her own expense (nb: even if you are a personal responsibility believer, rape is endemic in the military.) Religious institutions can strike abortion and birth control from their health plans if they wish to do so, and for years a “gag” order (lifted by the Obama administration) prevented any health care worker at a federally funded clinic from presenting abortion as an option.
Parental consent laws restrict the availability of abortion to younger women, sometimes meaning that they must seek the permission of a sexually abusive and/or enabling parent to abort a child conceived through incest — or pay a lawyer to get a court order. In some states, new laws have implemented sadistic laws designed to shame or intimidate women from seeking an abortion: in Oklahoma, in order to get an abortion, a woman must legally submit to being penetrated vaginally with an ultrasound device and forced to look at the embryo she is carrying.
Violence against abortion clinics mean that poor women often have no real possibility of getting to an abortion, even if they can pay for it when they get there, because all of the available providers are hundreds of miles away or out of state.
And I *do* think it is unreasonable to force a woman to wait for any amount of time beyond what it takes to make an appointment, because it says very clearly that women cannot make up their own minds.
Thanks for making such a strong argument — I appreciate it.
11144703 - August 24, 2011 at 10:05 am
Thank you for your persuasive response. You are courageous to engage in dialog with your readers, Claire.
I generally agree with you on the plight of military women and I support the Davis-Harman bill and Shays-Maloney bill.
Claire: “rape is endemic in the military”
We both agree that there is much underreporting of sexual assault against women and that the military has a terrible record of dealing with sexual assault. But your choice of words like “endemic” (“belonging” or “native to”, “characteristic of”, or “prevalent in”) is a gross distortion. These types of words turn people away who may initially be swayed by your message—indeed our message. Here are some stats from 2010:
Despite the suspected underreporting, sexual assault is more common in the military than it is among the civilian population, the report suggests — two for every 1,000 service members, versus 1.8 per 1,000 civilian women and one per 1,000 civilian men, according to statistics compiled by the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/16/90507/reports-of-sexual-assault-in-military.html#ixzz1Vx2O8oAe
Such stats, while deplorable, do not reflect rape as “endemic” in the military.
I could not find on the first few pages of Google a single site with a sympathetic view of the Oklahoma law that was passed overwhelmingly in both its houses. That’s not good for the exchange of ideas. On a law site (linked below) where the facts of the case emerge more carefully and is not even sympathetic to the OK law, there is no mention of “being penetrated vaginally with an ultrasound device and forced to look at the embryo she is carrying.” I may be wrong, but this sounds like progressive myth-making (which is as bad as conservative myth-making).
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2008/10/challenge-to-ok.html
Claire: “It is simply not true that US abortion laws are the most liberal in the world.”
Despite the U.S. regulations, it is. In what other country can one get an abortion in the 8th month based on psychological endangerment to the mother?
Claire: “now no federal dollars can be used for abortion”
Not true: from a pro-abortion website:
“In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.” http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
Claire: “many state legislatures have also banned the use of state funds for abortion.”
This is not entirely true:
“Every court that has considered the Hyde Amendment’s application to a state’s Medicaid program since 1993 has held that states continuing to participate in the Medicaid program must cover abortions resulting from rape or incest in order to be compliant with the Hyde Amendment, regardless of state laws that may be more restrictive.”
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
Claire: “Religious institutions can strike abortion and birth control from their health plans if they wish to do so”
So you would force a Muslim hospital to perform in its view unspeakable violence against a potential human when there are other hospitals out there? Should a Muslim physician at a Muslim hospital be forced to abort an 8th month fetus (or a 9th week fetus) if the mother claims she wishes to preserve her psychological health? Claire, I suspect you wouldn’t even require a Muslim woman whose face is hid to unveil for her driver’s license photo. (I hope I’m wrong.)
Claire: “and for years a “gag” order (lifted by the Obama administration) prevented any health care worker at a federally funded clinic from presenting abortion as an option.”
True, but aren’t we talking about laws today and not in the past (Rust v. Sullivan 1991)? (I’m glad like you that our military leader lifted the order.)
Claire: “Parental consent laws restrict the availability of abortion to younger women, sometimes meaning that they must seek the permission of a sexually abusive and/or enabling parent to abort a child conceived through incest — or pay a lawyer to get a court order.”
There are firms that provide the judicial bypass for free. Tweens are incredibly tech savvy and can find one pretty easily. When a thirteen or twelve year old (or younger) is having sex, there needs to be some accountability. Even Justice O’Connor recognized this view in Casey.
Claire: “And I *do* think it is unreasonable to force a woman to wait for any amount of time beyond what it takes to make an appointment, because it says very clearly that women cannot make up their own minds.”
A fetus is not a tooth to be extracted. I think 24 hours is reasonable. Again, have you seen the fetuses in the Bodies exhibit?
Thank you for considering my arguments.
washingtonwarrior - August 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Pro-abortion website? Don’t you mean pro-choice? Ugh…
11144703 - August 25, 2011 at 1:31 pm
washingtonwarrior,
Those who wish to prohibit abortion or restrict it to the point where it’s very difficult to access are anti-choice. Those who wish for unfettered or nearly unfettered access to abortion are pro-abortion.
washingtonwarrior - August 25, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Wrong. Where do you Rick Perry-loving David Duke wannabes get this stuff? No one is pro-abortion. No one. Feminists, progressives, liberals – whatever you choose to call us – want to create a world where all children are loved and wanted. That, however, simply isn’t realistic. As a result, women need a choice. No one is promoting abortions. We just want it on the table to serve as a viable option. Or are you against women having options? What about rights? Do you think women should have – gasp – rights?! Go back to your cave…
11144703 - August 25, 2011 at 10:48 pm
So washingtonwarrior, anyone to the right of you is a David Duke. Are you feeling bad today? I’ll assume you had a bad day and will respond with dignity after your vile comments.
The fetus is not a piece of tissue. The fetus is a potential human. The rights of the fetus must be taken into consideration.
You offer a bit of that idea: “No one is pro-abortion. No one. Feminists, progressives, liberals – whatever you choose to call us – want to create a world where all children are loved and wanted. That, however, simply isn’t realistic. As a result, women need a choice.”
Perhaps during your bad day you failed to read my first sentence:
“Those who wish to prohibit abortion or restrict it to the point where it’s very difficult to access are anti-choice.”
But that’s not good enough for ideological purists like you. In your reality, the fetus is like a tooth which one can extract in an unfettered manner.
I believe in the necessity of abortion, but I don’t believe it should be unfettered. No right is unlimited. We can agree or disagree on what’s reasonable, but women should engage, e.g., in informed consent, as Casey demonstrates. I think 24 hours to consider the (perhaps necessary) death of a potential human is reasonable.
That’s not good enough for tenured radicals. The key word is radical. Rick Perry is a radical. Your comment about me returning to a cave–someone who believes in the necessity of abortion but thinks abortion should be regulated–is most likely what Perry would say to me in private. (I would hope Claire is too nice to say such a thing.) Maybe you should reconsider your absolutist position. Your angry words in the last part of your post suggest you’re an absolutist radical just like Rick. You’re a mirror image of him. Maybe I’m wrong–please correct me if I am.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
11144703 - August 25, 2011 at 10:49 pm
So washingtonwarrior, anyone to the right of you is a David Duke. Are you feeling bad today? I’ll assume you had a bad day and will respond with dignity after your vile comments.
The fetus is not a piece of tissue. The fetus is a potential human. The rights of the fetus must be taken into consideration.
You offer a bit of that idea: “No one is pro-abortion. No one. Feminists, progressives, liberals – whatever you choose to call us – want to create a world where all children are loved and wanted. That, however, simply isn’t realistic. As a result, women need a choice.”
Perhaps during your bad day you failed to read my first sentence:
“Those who wish to prohibit abortion or restrict it to the point where it’s very difficult to access are anti-choice.”
But that’s not good enough for ideological purists like you. In your reality, the fetus is like a tooth which one can extract in an unfettered manner.
I believe in the necessity of abortion, but I don’t believe it should be unfettered. No right is unlimited. We can agree or disagree on what’s reasonable, but women should engage, e.g., in informed consent, as Casey demonstrates. I think 24 hours to consider the (perhaps necessary) death of a potential human is reasonable.
That’s not good enough for tenured radicals. The key word is radical. Rick Perry is a radical. Your comment about me returning to a cave–someone who believes in the necessity of abortion but thinks abortion should be regulated–is most likely what Perry would say to me in private. (I would hope Claire is too nice to say such a thing.) Maybe you should reconsider your absolutist position. Your angry words in the last part of your post suggest you’re an absolutist radical just like Rick. You’re a mirror image of him. Maybe I’m wrong–please correct me if I am.
I hope you have a better day tomorrow.