the minnesota review n.s. 52-54 (2001)Felicia CarrThe Gender Gap in the Academic Labor CrisisCurrent discussions of the academic labor crisis do not acknowledge that for women, especially for women in composition, labor issues and unfair working conditions have been a concern since the 1970s. I argue that the only reason the problem is now known as the academic labor crisis is because unfair labor practices have begun to affect men as well. Women appear to have made significant employment gains and at many institutions gender parity issues are no longer given serious consideration. It comes as a surprise to many academics that women are still working for less in the academy and that women are suffering disproportionately in the labor crisis. But even worse than laboring for less are the positions women are more likely to work in and the levels they are most likely to reach during their academic careers. Not only are women paid less than men in almost every faculty position, they are much more likely to stay on the lower rungs of the academic ladder. Women are also more likely to be working at less prestigious schools and at community colleges that pay less. According to a recent report by the American Association of University Professors, "substantial disparities in salary, rank and tenure between male and female faculty persist despite the increasing proportion of women in the academic profession" (Benjamin). These observations lead to a key question in reassessing the role of the gender gap in the academic labor crisis: What is the future for women in the academy? Will they eventually enter the ranks of full professors as equal partners in academic endeavors, or will they take a different track into a world of adjunct and restricted work? In order to judge the position and future of women in the academy, one must first examine the academic labor crisis-not as a gender—neutral event as it is usually portrayed—but rather as a phenomenon that disproportionately affects women. To demonstrate this, I will outline statistics on tenure, the development of feminized fields, the growing wage gap, constricted job prospects for women, the relationship between part-time work and women, and the consequences of part-time work. All provide a bleak answer to the question about women's future in a changing academy. While women are entering the academy as both students and scholars in increasing numbers every year, they are not making inroads into its upper levels. According to the latest statistics available in a study by the U.S. Education Department, women account for 36% of all full-time faculty, while men hold 64% of all full-time jobs (Leatherman, "Part-Timers" A18). [Refer to Table 1: Faculty Employment by Sex as of 1997.] In addition to dominating full-time appointments, men are also much more likely to hold tenured positions. Currently, 72% of men working full time have tenured positions; for women working full time that figure is only 46%—a figure basically unchanged since 1975 (Douglas). The Stanford history department provides a clear example of the inequities in tenure. In 1999 they had twenty-nine tenured men and five tenured women. Under the tenure of Dean John Shoven, six men who came up for tenure in the history department were approved. Of the four women who came up, one was approved, one approved with a demotion in rank, and two rejected. One rejected woman, Karen Sawislak, a graduate of Yale, had numerous articles, a well-received book, and excellent teaching evaluations (Sawislak B4). Based on her discovery that only 11.4% of the full professors at Stanford were women, Sawislak filed a sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of herself and 30 other women. Stanford is not an unusual case in its of treatment women. More recent figures from Stanford indicate that women now represent 19 percent of the faculty, an improvement, but still less than the national average in 1998 of 28.3 percent reported by the American Association of University Professors for women at doctoral granting universities (Feder). These figures demonstrate that at research institutions parity for women in tenure-track appointments is a long way off—at current rates women will reach parity with men as full professors in 2149 (Glazer-Raymo 50). Even when women faculty work full time, they are more likely to hold non-tenure track positions. Women working full time hold 30% of the non-tenure track positions, while for full-time men that figure is only 14% (Leatherman, "Growth" A14). These trends in hiring and promotion are based on longstanding stereotypes and a division of labor in which women, as nurturers, are associated with teaching, and men, as thinkers, are associated with research and publication. Ann Douglas argues that this situation has been developing since the nineteenth century and notes that: Gifted 19th century male elementary and high school teachers, unhappy with the growing number of women in their ranks, could aspire to the all-male world of the richest private colleges and universities. But if the elite institutions are themselves overrun with women, where can the most distinguished men go? The backlash today against women in the top-level universities is intense, though unacknowledged, precisely because the stakes are so high. Since men cannot abandon the university in the way they abandoned primary and secondary teaching, part of the current response at elite and other schools is a two-part reordering to accommodate the growing number of women entering it. In response to the devaluing that accompanies the feminization of any profession, men are abandoning certain disciplines in the university. As a result, women are now making the greatest gains in fields abandoned by men (Lomperis 652-653, Chamberlain 256-258). [Refer to Table 2. Most Feminine to Least Feminine Fields and Percent Change Between 1979 and 1986.] In addition to a reordering of the disciplines along gender lines, a two-tier system of rank is emerging. It is a split system in which men hold the tenured positions and focus on research and women hold the part-time positions and focus on teaching. There is also a growing gap between schools. Women are much more likely to teach at community colleges and less likely to be hired by research universities (Benjamin). Current figures indicate that women account for 50% of faculty at community colleges, but only 36% at four-year schools (Douglas). In addition, the wage gap is a continuing problem for women and one intensifying in the job crisis. [Refer to Table 3. Average Faculty Salaries.] The "Salaries and Tenure" report from the National Center for Education Statistics notes that a wage gap persists for women in all levels of faculty positions and that on average male faculty earn nearly $10,300 more than female faculty (NCES, "Salaries" iv). The gap varies by institution and is slightly less for younger women. This suggests to some that the earnings gender gap is closing in recent hirings (Toutkoushian), but it seems more likely that the earning gap widens as women move up in rank. The wage gap between types of schools is even more startling. The difference in average pay between elite Ph.D. granting schools, community colleges, and comprehensive four-year schools is now 40% (Magner, "Faculty" A16). This figure is of particular concern to women since they are less likely to teach at the more prestigious, and better paying, schools. The wage gap cannot be explained by a lack of qualified female applicants. According to the "Survey of Earned Doctorates," in 1998 female American students received 48% of the Ph.D.s (Magner, "Universities" A18). This represents a steady increase over the forty years the survey has been conducted. If these increases continue, women will soon earn the same number of Ph.D.s as men. This likelihood varies by field, however, and women are more likely to achieve parity with men in the humanities than in the hard sciences. The "most feminine chart" [Table 2], demonstrates how little progress women have made in entering the "hard" sciences and other "masculine" fields. In fact, a recent study estimated that at the current rate, equity in the sciences will not be reached until 2200—two hundred years from now. Why are Ph.D. figures important to a discussion of job prospects for women? They seem to support the widely held supposition that women hold an equal place in academe. While the overall averages look good, it is only because feminized fields such as nursing and English are now producing large numbers of Ph.D.s for women, while the "masculine" fields produce very few. This leads us to ask: What is the good of reaching Ph.D. parity in fields with the fewest rewards? Ph.D. placement figures from the Modern Language Association show that women are discriminated against even a field that produces many female Ph.D.s. [Refer to Table 4: Placements by Sex, 1996-1997.] So while graduation statistics suggest that women have achieved equality in some fields, women do not have parity in full-time jobs, full professorships, or salaries. Another element in the relationship between women and the academic labor crisis is the steady decline in the number of full-time jobs and a steady increase in the number of adjuncts. In 1970 part-timers accounted for about 22% of all faculty members. According to a study by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, by 1995 that figure had grown to 42.5% of all instructors (Leatherman, "Faculty"A12; Wilson, "University" A18). Conversely, data from the Department of Education reveals the other side of the trend—not only are part-time jobs growing—full-time lines are decreasing. Tenure track positions fell from 29% in 1975 to 20% in 1995. This is not just creating a crisis for departments who have to perform with fewer full-time faculty members and for new graduates who are experiencing more difficulty than ever in finding sustaining employment. It is creating a large pool of low paying, no benefit, part-time teaching jobs. According to the Modern Language Association census of Ph.D. placement, 1996-1997 marked the first year that part-time placements in literature and foreign languages outnumbered full-time placements. [Refer to Table 4. Placements by Sex, 1996-1997.] The census found that full-time tenure track appointments accounted for 30% of all placements for the year, while various non-tenure-track and part-time placements were 38%. It is significant for women that part-time jobs are strictly teaching jobs. Since the university reward system is based on research and publication, it is extremely difficult for part-timers to stay alive professionally. Research from the Center for Education Statistics indicates that at every type of school, and in every category of work except one, part-timers publish less. And between 1987 and 1992 the amount of work published by part-timers dropped to even lower levels than usual (NCES, "Statistical" 44, 84). This may be related to how part-timers spend their time. They spend more time in the classroom and significantly less time doing research (NCES "Fast Facts"). Why work in these reduced circumstances with little hope of professional development and advancement? Women are not always taking these jobs because it suits a need for "flexibility" as is often assumed. According to the National Survey of Post-Secondary Faculty, nearly two-thirds of women surveyed stated that they would rather be teaching full-time, but were working part-time because that is all that was available to them (Benjamin). But how do part-timers feel about their work? The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story about part-timers who are happy with their jobs. In particular, those teaching part-time in vocational areas reported being happier than those in the humanities. Teachers in vocational subjects tend to have full-time jobs elsewhere and teach as a supplement or to garner prestige outside the university. Those in the humanities tend to be more economically dependent on their teaching and are less likely to be satisfied with their working conditions (Wilson, "Adjunct" A8). In response to The Chronicle's article on happy part-timers, Wanda Warren Betty wrote to remind readers that part-timers are denied not only job security, but also a voice in running the institution. The only people on most campuses who are fully empowered to participate in university governance are tenured faculty. Thus, she argues, part-timers "must not be politically naive and institutionally irresponsible by convincing themselves that none of this matters since they are 'happy'" (Berry B10). Another respondent had a more biting take on the story in The Chronicle. Keith Hoeller noted that: Now that The Chronicle has exposed the dirty (but not so little) secret about our nation's reliance on underpaid part-time faculty members, it is any wonder that such a story appears? It was only after the abolitionists of the 1830s declared all-out war on slavery that slave holders felt the need to invent the myth of the happy slave. (B10) Part-time work pays substantially less, seriously reduces one's opportunities to remain active in the profession through research and publication, and prevents participation in the governance of the university. It is also disproportionally done by women. While women are only 36% of the full-time work force, they hold 47% of the part-time jobs. Unable to obtain parity in full-time teaching, they have obtained parity where the rewards are lowest—in part-time teaching. But the averages do not tell the whole story about women and part-time work. In feminized fields, such as English, women hold more than 60% of the part-time jobs. [Refer to Table 4: Placements by Sex, 1996-1997.] This summary of the placement statistics as reported by the Modern Language Association for 1996-1997 is the most startling demonstration of the fact that women are taking the bulk of the lesser status and lesser paying jobs in English. It is disturbing to see how few graduates, only 30%, were able to find tenure track work at all, but further investigation of the results reveal that women are far more likely than men to hold non-tenure track jobs and part-time work. The multiple disparities documented here demonstrate that women's labor in the academy is stigmatized and devalued, and that women carry an even greater burden in the academic labor crisis. At present there is only one answer to the unfair working conditions women face in the academy—collective action. This action may take several fronts—lawsuits, unionizing, adjuncts and tenure track faculty working together, public reports of unfair practices, the revitalization of professional groups such as the Women's Caucus of the Modern Languages—but it must be taken. This battle is particularly important to women because men are leaving the academy altogether. According to the American Association of University Professors: "Few men are finding their professional futures in academe, whereas female participation continues to increase despite the decline in terms and conditions of faculty employment" (Benjamin). For women, organizing against the declines in the university and the creation of a two-tiered system within the university is feminist activism and an opportunity to take control of the working conditions in their lives. Table 1. Faculty Employment by Sex at Four-Year Institutions, 1997.
Table 2. Most Feminine to Least Feminine Fields Based on Doctorates Awarded.
Table 3. Average Faculty Salaries, 1998-1999.
Table 4. Placements by Sex, 1996-1997 MLA Census of PhD Placement in Literature & Foreign Languages.
Works Cited
Felicia L. Carr is completing her dissertation in the Cultural Studies Program at George Mason University, serving on the new MLA Committee on the Status of Graduate Students in the Profession, and providing technical support to the on-line magazine English Matters. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||