Single Professors, Isolated in the Coupled World of Academe
Thursday, April 22, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern timeOn college campuses, where three out of four faculty members are married, single professors feel isolated and even discriminated against. Should universities consider changes in how unmarried professors are treated, to level the playing field?
While the number of single people in the country has grown over the last few decades, academe remains a very coupled universe. Three-quarters of faculty members are married. Single professors not only feel isolated, but contend that universities discriminate against them. Married professors receive more benefits than their single colleagues, including health-care coverage for families and tuition remission for children. And single professors often get stuck with assignments, including night classes and Friday-afternoon meetings, that married professors avoid by claiming family responsibilities. Does academe's treatment of single professors versus married ones amount to unequal pay for equal work? Should universities consider changes that would level the playing field?
» Singular Mistreatment (4/23/2004)
Bella M. DePaulo is a social psychologist who studies discrimination against single people. She worked for 20 years at the University of Virginia, where her academic specialty was the psychology of deception. She is now a visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where her interest in how America treats single people has turned into an academic passion. In January she submitted to publishers a proposal for a book, called Singled Out, that she hopes will raise consciousness among single people and prompt the rest of the world to treat them fairly. She will respond to questions and comments on these topics on Thursday, April 22, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time. Questions and comments are welcome and may be posted now.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Good Afternoon. I'm Robin Wilson and I write about work-life issues for The Chronicle. I'm glad to have Bella DePaulo here today to field questions on this important topic. Thanks for being with us, Bella.
Bella M. DePaulo:
Thanks for inviting me, Robin, and thanks also for your wonderful article. I love having this opportunity to hear what others are thinking. Thanks also to those who have emailed me separately from this forum. If I do not get to answer everyone in this hour, feel free to contact me at depaulo@psych.ucsb.edu
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Ok, then. Let's get started with some questions today.
Question from Jenny, Large Urban Institution:
Is there any *outcome* data to support the claim of difficulties for single faculty members? Retention rates (single vs. married)? Tenure rates (single vs. married)? The money argument doesn't sway me. If single people get their health insurance needs met, what difference does it make if the institution pays more for a married person's health insurance? And anecdotes can be found on both sides --- it's HARD doing all that publishing and balancing a family, too. So as a good academic --- forget the anecdotes, show me the numbers.
Bella M. DePaulo:
As one who has collected empirical data for decades, I love your suggestion. I do not know of any numbers relevant to the issue, but I hope that someone is inspired by your question to collect some. Still, I think that health care for everyone is a question of values rather than an empirical question, so I would like to see universal health care happen regardless of the outcome data that I would love to see collected. In the meantime, universities have the challenge of dealing with limited resources, so more money spent in one way (e.g., toward tuition benefits) means less money spent somewhere else.
Question from Big C, Cal State System:
This question is not being framed fairly. The question isn't married vs. unmarried, but, in most cases, parents vs. non-parents. And the proper question should be: "Should non-parents pick-up a little slack so that parents have more time to spend with their kids?" I think this question has to be answered as the good of the few, non-parents, versus the good of the many, parents and society at large. I am not a parent. At one point in my career I was one of two singles in a department of twelve in which nine of the members were either pregnant or in the midst of divorce. I pulled a lot of extra committee and advising duty, but I understood that the problems that my colleagues were dealing with were more important than my desire to be treated absolutely equally. Later I was never shy about reminding everyone I had already pulled my part the previous year. We aren’t going to question whether pregnant women belong in the workforce, are we? Remember, this is a very slippery slope and I don’t think anyone wants to return to a time when women were forced to stay home with the kids.
Bella M. DePaulo:
You seem very sensitive to the important people and events in the lives of your colleagues, and I think your department is very fortunate to have you. My hope is that they will always be just as sensitive to the important people and events in your life. I don’t much like the pitting of one group against another–single vs married, parents vs people who are not parents. From my idealistic perspective, if we really did look at things from a singles perspective, we would not have a singles-focused world, nor would we have an anti-family values world; instead, we would have a world centered on Human Values. I think we need to be supportive of all important relationships. My guess is that you are a devoted friend. I bet if you had a friend who really needed you, you would want to be there for that person. I hope your colleagues are as considerate of those aspects of your life as you are of their divorces and their children. Of course, the care of children is important; so is the care of all people who truly need it–for example, the seriously ill, the disabled, and the elderly who need help. It is not single people in particular who should be responsible for creating the conditions that allow parents to work. We all need to work towards a more caring society.
Question from Jonathon Parry, husband of newly-hired assistant professor and parents of 3-year old girl:
Have the single professors against marrieds (SPAMs) who feel discriminated against given thought to how the extra benefits accruing to married faculty members are not like bonuses or other perks for extra vacations, more take-home pay etc.? It is money, benefits, etc. generally applied to living expenses--not fun money. Also, do the SPAMs understand that married couples receive extra benefits because they contribute more to society, especially if they raise kids? It costs marrieds several tens of thousands of dollars to raise a child who may one day earn a graduate degree, then earn a tenure-track professor position, and then carry on the very research and teaching that the SPAMs do now. If the next generatation would not exist, and the generations to follow, the SPAMs' current work would be in vain. Instead of complaining, SPAMs should rejoice in their knowledge that marrieds are joyfully raising the next generation while SPAMs can enjoy their ocean view--in peace.
Bella M. DePaulo:
I laughed out loud when I read your clever acronym! Still, I hope it does not catch on. I think of the singles point of view not as one that pits singles against marrieds or anyone else, but instead as one that values all humans and all close relationships. As a parent, you are (appropriately) quick to think of the welfare of your children. I think your children are important, too, and I value the work you do in raising them. I also value everyone else’s children, and other people of any age who are in genuine need of help and care. I would not at all mind paying more taxes to help children who might otherwise not have a chance to go to college. There are also other kinds of pursuits that I value. Think, for example, of all of the social activists, now and over the centuries, who have worked for better, more inclusive, and more humane societies. Or the scientists who have made discoveries that benefit people for generations to come. Many have been people without children. Who knows if they would have been able to make such deeply important contributions if they were spending a lot of time raising kids? There are people who can do both, and that’s great, too. But I think we cannot uncritically assume that anyone who raises children is making the best contribution to society that anyone can possibly make.
Comment from R, public research university:
My first response--as part of an academic couple who worked for years to land jobs together, as well as the untenured parent of a toddler--was to view this as something of a joke. But I think it's more helpful, and less divisive--to see many of the issues that affect me as well as my "singleton" colleagues as related to an outmoded paradigm for the academic: a married man with a stay-at-home-spouse and minimal domestic duties. The fact is, that description applies to few in the academy, however "Ozzie and Harriet" we may seem in comparison to other demographics (I *would* be interested to know, however, how we compare to other *professions*: like all workers in fields that require graduate degrees, we are older than the average adult workers--a fact that may skew comparisons.)
Comment from Dawn, Montclair State University:
The Chronicle article compares the percentages of married people in the general public (57%) and in academe (76%) however, the age group considered to be "the American public" includes anyone over the age of 15. In general, professors don't become professors until at least 10-15 years later, at a time when even the American public is more likely to be married. Do you have percentages for comparable age groups (say between 30-60 years of age for the American public)?
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Bella, let me try to answer at least part of that question. If you look at figures for adults only (18 and over) from the Census Bureau for 2002, you'll find that they are very similar to those published in The Chronicle, for people 15 and over. But if you isolate the age groups you mention for the general public, you are right that the proportion of those married goes up -- although it still does not appear to be as high as for academics, particularly for men. For example, for men in the general public ages 30 to 34, about 60 percent are married. The figure rises to 71.2 percent for men in the general public, ages 40 to 44. But, that is still lower than the 82 percent of male faculty members (at all ages) who are married. For women, the picture looks somewhat different. For those in the general public, ages 25 to 29, the proportion who are married is 53.5 percent. If you look at women in the general public, ages 40 to 44, the proportion of those married jumps to 72.1 percent. Of all female faculty members -- regardless of age -- 66 percent are married.
Question from CAJ, small college PA:
As a faculty member on the college planning and budget committee, I requested that the college find an equitable way to treat single faculty viz. the tuition-remission policy. I was promised that the college would look at it, but it never has. Is there any recourse, perhaps legally, for single people to gain equality with married professors with children in pay and benefits?
Bella M. DePaulo:
First, thanks for raising the question with the committee, and then following up. I am not a lawyer so I cannot address the question about legal recourse. However, I think there are other ways that singles (and others) can make things happen. I would love to see others speak up, as you do. In the United States right now, ‘tis the season. Singles have often voted at lower rates than people who are married, yet with their big numbers, growing all the time, they surely have the potential to get their concerns on the table. With regard to benefits, I like cafeteria style. Each employee gets a certain dollar amount, and can spend the amount on the benefits–and the beneficiaries--they choose.
Question from SRT Small Liberal Arts College:
Singles are not a monolithic group with singular needs for benefits, no evening classes, etc. (Neither are married faculty for that matter.) My husband recently committed suicide. So, I now find myself the single mother of four children. In fact according to the Department of Education, more than 10 percent of women faculty members are single mothers and a smaller number of male faculty are single fathers. I do want family medical coverage and tuition benefits. Do I have more in common with my married with children colleagues? Or are we singles with children a separate demographic in academia?
Bella M. DePaulo:
I can really empathize with your question because I have a friend in a very similar situation. I agree that your children should have medical coverage, as should all children. No child’s welfare should depend on how many parents a child has or whether a parent’s job comes with health benefits. I also do not think that an adult’s health care should be contingent on whether they have a living spouse with health benefits. I really hope the United States gets to the point of universal health care, and fast. With universal heath care, no one would need to try to align with one demographic more than another. As humans, we would all qualify.
Comment from Ann, Midwestern university:
Universities should consider changes that would level the playing field for married people who do not have children, too. Like single people, we do not reap the benefits given to our colleagues who are married with children.
Question from Laurie Cubbison, Radford University:
What, if anything, has happened to the term "old maid" to refer to single women of a certain age?
Bella M. DePaulo:
"Old maid" is one of those terms that never quite goes away. Historian Pat Palmieri told me something interesting she found in her research: A writer for The Ladies Home Journal commented: “The recent progress of women has led to the almost entire elimination of the term ‘old maid’.” The year was 1915! My colleague Wendy Morris and I have done some research in which we ask students what comes to mind when they hear certain terms. With old maid, most of them produce the expected stereotypes, but a few do say that an old maid is an old person who does household work for hire.
Question from Vanita, small rural college:
I agree that the situation for single male professors is all but fetishized in comparison to single female professors, as is true, I believe, in most, if not all, professions. It is even more pronounced for female professors of color who are also openly lesbian--that is, unwilling to closet my sexuality. Since I saw no mention of single female professors of color or single lesbian professors in the article, do you intend to provide a racial and sexuality demographic in your research?
Bella M. DePaulo:
Yes, I think it is very important to look at particular demographics. The African-American demographic is especially interesting since the percentage of singles is high. Anecdotally, it has been reported that the sense of stigma that black women feel is less for that reason, but I know of no good evidence on that. The theme, for me, that over-rides any point about differences is the valuing (in universities and in society at large) of people who are coupled over people who are single. In the furor over gay marriage, for example, the fight is over whether gays and lesbians should count as officially recognized couples; what is left out of that debate is the question of why anyone should receive any special benefits (or penalties, for that matter) simply because they do or do not have a mate.
Comment from Samantha Blackmon, Purdue University:
As a single, African American woman I found the quote in the article on this topic referring to single people as the greatest underrepresented minority on campus down right insulting. I look around everyday and I see scores more single people than I do African Americans. This does not mean that being single is not an issue, but it does mean that people should not claim "minority" status, especially in the superlative, when there is no merit to the claim. A better question may be what can we do to even the playing ground for actual minorities in the academy.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Thanks -- your point is well taken. But to be fair: The quote from Alice Bach, at Case Western Reserve University, said that single people are the last underrepresented minority, not the greatest.
Question from M. Eggert, Wake Forest:
Over the past 3 years I've been trying to get our University Senate to recommend changing our health insurance benefits from 60% for employee and family to 100% for employees only, with the option to buy family policies at the group rate. In addition to giving equal benefits for equal work this would also provide insurance for 200-300 staff who cannot afford the 40% for themselves, much less their families. I have been told that this would not be "family friendly," that I was being unaltruistic, and that if I did not like the plan I did not have to work here. I understand that nobody wants to pay more money, but I have been both surprised by the vehemence of the responses to my suggestions and puzzled by this seeming entitlement mentality. I do not understand how highly educated persons can sincerely argue that it is unaltruistic for me not to want to pay the 40% that subsidizes not only THEIR children but their spouses/partners who can earn their own money.
Based on both your current research and your background in social psychology, is this entitlement mentality typical? Where does it come from? Is it a somewhat recent development? (My mother, a teacher and wife of my professor father, was a bit disbelieving when I told her my experiences and she had the same opinion as I. Is this just a case of "mother love" or are there generational differences in expectations?)
Bella M. DePaulo:
This is such an important question and one I have been grappling with for years. I'm going to write a fairly long answer to this. (I promise not to be so long winded with all of my responses!)
When Time ran a cover story about women who were single and happy, an irate reader wrote that “as long as women bounce along kidding themselves that life is full when alone, they are putting their hedonistic, selfish desires ahead of what’s best for society.” He signed it with his name and home town, and sent it in to be published in a magazine with a circulation of about four million. If the reader, and so many others like him, was roiled by the thought of an adult who presumably has no one to care for but herself, then there should be little anger toward the single women who take on the daunting task of raising children without a husband. A story in Time about that topic, though, elicited equally hateful reader responses. For example, one man declared that “It is sadly typical of our narcissistic age that so many women are opting to have children and raise them ‘on their own.’” Perhaps such responses are based on a genuine concern that children are hurt when they are raised by just one parent. If so, then perhaps singles’ attempts to provide for those who are needy in ways that do not put anyone at risk will be met with approval. Recently, the Executive Director of the AASP told a reporter about a single man who would like to have the opportunity to put his elderly mother on his health care plan; the man thought that seemed fair since his married colleagues had the option of including their spouse on their plan. The reporter repeated the story to a professor of family studies, who declared the idea “foolish and selfish.”
The authors of the derisive comments were in all cases total strangers to the single people they were castigating. Yet they were passionate in their disapproval. The issues that collect around people who are single are ones that run deep. The belief that adults should marry and have children is a worldview. It is a way of organizing and making sense of our lives. In the hearts of so many people, it is not just one of a number of ways to live a life; it is the good and moral way. Marriage and family have an important place in organized religions, but the belief in this way of living has become a religion of its own. In the short run, the more it is threatened--by gays wanting to marry, single people wanting to have kids, and adults wishing neither to marry nor to have kids–the more intense the reaction will be.
Comment from MB, large research univ.:
On the matter of tuition remission benefits, I and some other single faculty members some years ago raised the question of whether we could have such benefits to give to our nephews and nieces--the answer was that it would be too expensive for the university to provide such benefits to us--as though they had factored into their financial planning the fact that some faculty would be childless. I like Bella's cafeteria idea and tried to propose it with little success.
Question from Greg, Cal Poly, SLO:
"I don't just think about this as identity politics," she says, "it's about human rights."
That a department chair asks you to teach night or weekend classes or fill in for a married colleague on a committee or attend a dinner with a job candidate because the married profs are home with kids is less a violation of a human right (i.e., you have no leeway to respond "No thanks. I'm overburdened myself with work, and besides I've been putting in a lot of sub time for my married colleagues already this year, or "You know, Prof. Chair, I'd like to oblige, but, honestly, I'm exhausted from all the filling in and extra work hours I've taken on") than of fair treatment. Are you claiming that even as an untenured colleague, you have NO recourse to these burdensome requests and that married faculty simply take it for granted that you'll submit? Indeed, that you OUGHT to submit? I find it somewhat offensive that you would compare the situation of single professors with that of a group that has been denied human rights.
Bella M. DePaulo:
You are right that the small stuff, like being asked to teach at night, is in no way comparable to the kinds of deeply significant issues addressed by the civil rights movement and some other important social movements. So thank you for raising that point and allowing me to address it. I think there are some very important ways that singles are mistreated, now and historically. (Weren't single women more likely than married women to have been accused of being witches?) Here's another contemporary example for which I have no hard data but would love to see some: In the military, I think that leaders have some discretion over which soldiers get sent home for a break. My guess is that they favor married soldiers. If so,that would be a matter of life and death. With regard to discrimination against singles society-wide (not just in academe), singles are less likely than marrieds to be without health insurance, and discrimination against them in housing, for example, is legal in many states. I have another reaction to your question, though. Should discrimination have to rise to a certain level before it is addressed? If so, what is that level and who decides? Going back to your original objection to my use of the term "human rights," I usually prefer "human values." My position is that all humans should have access to what they need to lead a decent life--a living wage, health care, etc.
Question from Ms. (read Miss) Nettle, small liberal arts college:
I could go on at length because no one has ever asked about this topic, but I won't. I know of spousal hires who were shoe-horned into departments over more suitable candidates, and whose contracts lasted longer than the marriages that constituted their qualifications in the first place. As a Ph.D. student, I wanted to do a thesis on the paucity of desirable choices for women as represented in a small cycle of British films of the 1960s and 1970s (such as the film Alfie), and was dissuaded from this project because it would seem poisonous to possible future committee members. What, other than the fact that one might strike at the heart of the majority of faculties' domestic arrangements, is it about academe that results in it being dangerous to criticize marriage, which is, after all, a statistical failure? What is it about academe that makes it such a hotbed for breeders? And of that high percentage of academics who are married, how many of them are serial marriers? At the institution where I am now on the tenure track, the mania for spousal hiring extends to the staff.
Bella M. DePaulo:
I did not know about academe being even more marriage-oriented than society at large until Robin Wilson (the writer of the Chronicle story) told me about the statistics she found. I still don't know why that is, but I am fascinated by it--especially since academe has the reputation of being so liberal and cutting edge. I think your point about serial marriers is important. I don't know the answer to that either. But to me it suggests another big issue. Marriage is valued no matter whether a marriage is a first marriage or a fourth. It is "interesting" that married people are regarded as especially stable and "settled" in that marriage is a relationship that is especially unlikely to last. There are some data indicating that in old age, women who have always been single are especially unlikely to be lonely. I think that may be because they have friendships and other close relationships that they have sustained over the course of their lives. Kay Trimberger is doing some wonderful work on women who have always been single.
Comment from Jess, Small Rural U.:
The issue is also not one of "who is better -- married, or singles"... I am a late 30-something, single, never-married, in a department with 3 other faculty members with families. It hasn't taken a lot to recognize that I am the one who gets asked to do certain things since I am the "one without out-of-work responsibilities." I have not specifically heard these words, but the hidden message is clear. Does that make me a person who doesn't like married people, or one who doesn't appreciate the responsibilities they have outside of work? No. But, why should I be the one to take on increased workload because I'm single and childless....I do have other things in my life that are important to me, and I do not want others to basically indicate that my outside involvements are not as important as childrearing.
Comment from Mary Beth Norton, Cornell University:
This is a comment and an offer rather than a question. For some years a group of single professors living in Ithaca has been getting together regularly for dinner at each other's houses.(we call ourselves the SPCC--Single Professors Cooking Collective). Our founder realized long ago that "single people need families/support groups" too so we established a place where we can all vent and (the rules provide) nothing goes beyond the dinner table. We don't have too many people from any one dept. We try to have dinner at someone's house at least once a month. We have an 'incest taboo' and do not date within the group. As the semi-official 'historian' of the SPCC I have written a history of the group with a record to the guidelines for success we have evolved over more than 20 years and the reasons for them. I would be happy to share these with anyone who wants a copy and who sees the many advantages of imitating our example. People can email me at mbn1@cornell.edu.
Comment from Jane, small public university:
In the article, the single faculty members only emphasize the negative aspects of being single. For the article to be balanced, why did the writer not question the positive aspects? As a married person, it is not all the bed of roses that the single people seemed to imply that it was. I don't ever go home and watch "Buffy" I go home to homework, laundry, soccer practice, two sets of elderly parents and heaven forbid a spouse that has not a peachy day. Sometimes I would love to just go home and think about ME!
Question from marguerite higgs aiu , education student:
How can single people air their grievances in a legal manner in respect to treatment based on their singlenes? What evidence do they need to support their stance?
Bella M. DePaulo:
I have no legal training so I cannot give you a direct answer to your question. But others have asked related questions, so I would like to answer your question and theirs from another angle. One problem with trying to speak out about this issue--as several of you have already mentioned--is the possible repercussions. There is some very interesting research in social psychology, by Cheryl Kaiser and others, showing that people who complain about unfair treatment--even when their complaints are clearly legitimate--are at risk for being put down by others. I think one way around this dilemma is collective action. If a number of people got together to make their case, it would be more difficult for them to be dismissed (for example, as just one angry person). Of course, the small numbers of singles in academe makes it harder to find enough people in a similar circumstances to come together. And, of course, like-minded colleagues may not want to speak up for fear of reprisal. Good luck in your efforts. I hope you meet with success.
Question from Scott, University of Rochester:
I use to work at a small, catholic, Franciscan University. We had about 37 friars living, teaching, working, etc on campus. Since they were not married, and did not have kids they were allowed to have tuition remission at the University for their nieces and nephews. Do you think this is something that could become mainstream for Single Faculty and Staff members?
Bella M. DePaulo:
That is so interesting! I did not know there was a university that offered an option for nieces and nephews and not just children. I do like the idea of opening the range of potential beneficiaries in that manner. I don't know what the chances are of that becoming commonplace in the near future. Probably not great. But I think we should all keep trying to make universities (and societies) fairer. With regard to tuition breaks in particular, I actually would like it better if universities put that money toward talented students who might otherwise not have a chance to attend college. The relatives of university professors are not always in that group.
Question from Susan Morris, Old Dominion University, mid-size southeastern state university:
I live in a very conservative area, so being single is even more of a stigma, especially at a southern state conservative school. I don't get invited to dinners and private parties because I am a third wheel. Men automatically bring their wives into the conversation, which often I find unnecessary and and wonder why. So my question is why do men seem to find it necessary to bring their wives into the conversation when talking to me? Especially in a conservative professional setting? My second question is that as an older single Ph.D. student I found it almost impossible to find a mentor. My mentor was a male professor who was very uneasy about being seen with me. I thought that I was discriminated against because of my single status. A male student I feel would not have had this same problem. I could not fine a woman professor to be a mentor. The one who could behaved like a man. So both as a student and now as an adjunct, I feel as if I am functioning on the fringe of society. My research further exacerbates my isolation. email M42ndst@yahoo.com Replies and comments welcomed from all.
Bella M. DePaulo:
You have touched on so many interesting and important issues. I have had some similar experiences. For example, I sent a male colleague, who has been active in so many rights issues, information about a singles rights group (AASP) and he responded with an email about how much he loved his wife! The issue of singles, or the presence of a live single women, seems to send some married men scurrying to the "security" of their wives, as if to say, "I'm taken! I don't want to get involved with you," as if talking about professional issues were threatening. As singles and others speak up about their concerns, then eventually, I hope, there will be less pressure to act like someone you are not (as in the mentor you mentioned).
Question from A recent divorcee, Manhattan College:
Are you classifying single professors as those who are not married or those who have never been married? This is an important distinction especially if that process occured while the professor was a member of a department. Will you distinguish betweeen the two? Have you found differences in treatment among single professors who express no desire for marriage or family and those who do?
Bella M. DePaulo:
I do think that distinctions among types of single professors are important and I will be pursuing that issue. (If you want to share your personal experiences, I'd love to hear about them: depaulo@psych.ucsb.edu .) I love your last question but I do not know of any data on it yet.
Question from Jana, small rural college:
Are conditions better for single female professors when they chair a department or are chaired over by a single professor, male or female? Or do you find that unfair treatment of single professors is an unfortunate effect of the tenure system? How significant an impact is demographics in this treatment? In other words, is treatment more unfair at small colleges? Urban universities? Women's colleges? HBCUs? How about community colleges? Who is more unfair to single professors: humanities, social sciences, sciences, or professional schools? Or have you found that the treatment of single professors is simply unfair across the board?
Bella M. DePaulo:
These are such important questions. So far as I know, there are few studies addressing them. I do hope others are inspired to do the relevant research. I certainly will continue to do so for a long time! The fact that there are few known answers to these questions is symptomatic of the place of singles in society as well as in science and in the university. For example, in my field of psychology, there is a huge literature on relationships--but the vast majority of the studies of adults are on romantic relationships. Yet, friendships are part of almost every adult life, and more people have sibs than spouses.
Question from Stacey, Northeastern Research University :
Wow. I am beginning to feel as though the cards are stacked against me. I've spent seven years preparing for a teaching career in academia and am due to go on the job market for the first time in the fall. But now I'm wondering if my status as a single, African American woman with a four year old will count against me. Will hiring committees prejudge my ability to actively engage in teaching, research, and service based on my single parent status?
Bella M. DePaulo:
I hope you will not be prejudged, but I don't know for sure. Personally, I hope you go for it! We need you.
Question from Valerie Fay, small liberal arts college :
As a single woman I have definitely experienced that sense of isolation,especially since all of the full-time faculty in my area are men. Can I expect it to ever get any better, or am I better off looking for employment elsewhere, some place where the "playing field" is more balanced? Thanks.
Bella M. DePaulo:
I hope it will get better, but I don't know how quickly. One thing that helped me a great deal was to search for like-minded colleagues (who may or may not be single) outside of my own department. I found some wonderful colleagues and friends in Women's Studies. At the level of the collective, I hope people like you do not get discouraged from entering academe, because things are only likely to improve if you do not just leave the academy. On the other hand, from an individual level, I do realize how difficult it can be. Good luck with whatever you decide.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Thanks to all of our readers for participating today in this lively discussion. And to our guest, Bella DePaulo -- we appreciate your time.
Bella M. DePaulo:
Thanks so much for all of your fascinating questions and comments and observations. I love hearing what others are thinking, whether it is in accord with my own ideas or not. Feel free to stay in touch. Thanks again to Robin Wilson and to everyone at the Chronicle for bringing this important issue into the light.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education