1994 Annual Report
AMS-ASA-AWM-IMS-MAA-NCTM-SIAM
Joint Committee on Women in the Mathematical Sciences
The Joint Committee on Women in Mathematics (JCW) is a
joint committee of the above seven mathematics societies; its charge is
to identify and recommend actions which those societies should take
to alleviate some of the disadvantages that women mathematicians
now experience and to document its recommendations and actions by
presenting data. On 17-18 September 1994, the JCW held its first
annual intensive weekend meeting at the O'Hare airport Hilton in
Chicago. Prior to that, JCW conducted business by electronic mail and
a small subset met at the AMS-MAA joint mathematics meeting in
Cincinnati in January, 1994. Specific actions and recommendations are
summarized below.
All those attending the September meeting found it extremely
productive and agreed that the work accomplished was well worth the
modest cost to the participating societies. There was an unequivocal
consensus that further meetings of this type should take place
annually. It was also agreed that additional business would be
conducted throughout the year by e-mail, and that subsets would meet
elsewhere whenever practical, such as at the AMS-MAA January
meetings and the summer Joint Statistics meetings.
1. Sexual Harassment: In February, 1994, the JCW formally
recommended that all of the mathematics societies (represented on the
JCW) endorse the AAUP statement on sexual harassment. The MAA
had already done so previously and AWM had endorsed a statement
of its own. At its April meeting the AMS Council endorsed the AAUP
statement and subsequently voted by mail ballot to "speak in the name
of the Society" on this matter; in August, the ASA Council endorsed
the statement. However, the SIAM Council did not act on this matter
and the IMS reported that its Executive Committee, despite "without
exception ... support[ing] the AAUP general statement of policy" took
no action because of concerns about procedures (which were not part
of the JCW recommendation). We are awaiting notification of NCTM
action.
At the request of the MAA science policy committee, the JCW
considered the question of whether or not sexual harassment in a
research environment should be included in the definition of
scientific misconduct. Because this issue was tied to other complex
questions, including concerns about the questionable NSF practice of
categorizing it under "serious deviation from scientific practice", the
JCW never reached a consensus leading to a formal resolution on this
matter. JCW did learn that current NSF grant management policy
does not even include rules implementing the statutory provisions of
Title IX (sex discrimination), although a review is underway. In
February, the JCW chair met with both NSF legal counsel and Linda
Skidmore, Director of the NRC Committee on Women in Science and
Engineering (CWSE). Subsequently, Jewel Plummer Cobb, CWSE
chair, wrote to COSEPUP asking that the NAS/NAE/IOM Councils
address this issue and suggesting that grant management guidelines
include a workplace free from sexual harassment as well as "drug use".
Since this was consistent with JCW concerns, and the issue may be
better addressed by the NRC CWSE than by JCW, no further action has
been taken.
2. Washington and Science Policy: JCW has continued to cooperate
with JPBM on a variety of issues, including endorsement of
Congresswoman Morella's efforts to establish a Congressional
Commission on the Advancement of Women in the Science and
Engineering Work Forces.
In April, JCW and JPBM learned that Congresswoman Eshoo
was pressing Clinton to name more women to the National Science
Board (NSB), but that her (AWIS-generated) list of potential nominees
included only one mathematician. Using JCW's earlier list of
potential nominees to the proposed congressional commission as a
starting point, JPBM forwarded a list of mathematicians to President
Clinton's science advisor, John Gibbons. In August, Clinton named
six new members, but no mathematicians, to the NSB, leaving
mathematicians (of both sexes) seriously under-represented.
In May, the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Committee
on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on Careers for
Women in Science and Technology. Although some of the testimony
was excellent, none of the eight women scientists who spoke were
mathematicians. JCW remains concerned about the need for a more
effective voice in Washington, and views this as part of a larger
problem of effective representation of mathematicians.
Much of the January, 94 JCW meeting in Cincinnati was
devoted to an informal discussion with Fred Wan and Richard
Herman regarding NSF policy, programs affecting women, and gender
aspects of an MPS division program of data collection and analysis.
JCW would like to thank DMS for its willingness to communicate and
respond to their concerns.
3. Women Speakers at Mathematics Meetings: The ICM program in
Zurich had an unprecedented ten women speakers, including two
plenary speakers. Nevertheless, there are still far too many
conferences with few or no women speakers, and this issue remains
one of JCW's major concerns. During the past year, the JCW made a
number of specific recommendations to the AMS. Although the
suitability of some of these (e.g. incentive funding or including more
junior mathematicians) will vary with the meeting format, two
memos are attached so that other groups may consider these
suggestions also. [The first recommendation on a "carrot" of incentive
funding was not forwarded to the AMS Council for action because of
reported opposition from the AMS policy Committee on Meetings and
Conferences (COMC); the second set of recommendations will be
placed on the agenda for the Jan. 1995 Council meeting unless the JCW
chair receives new input from COMC leading to a mutually agreeable
revised recommendation.]
It should be emphasized that JCW actions have concentrated on
AMS, not because the Society is particularly derelict -- on the contrary,
the AMS record for invited hour speakers at national and section
meetings is excellent -- but because the Society's laudable policy of
making an annual report of statistics on women (see Nov./Dec.
Notices, p. 1213) inevitably draws attention to areas where greater
participation of women is called for. Last February, JCW
recommended that all represented organizations make similar reports
to their members. Thus far, JCW has received such a report only from
ASA, which has an extremely healthy record of participation of
women members at all levels. In collaboration with the MAA's
Committee on Participation of Women (CPWM), the MAA
representatives to JCW have been preparing a set of recommendations
for future MAA reporting. However, none of the other organizations
appear to have acted on this important issue.
Finally, the JCW was dismayed by the letter from Larry Shepp
published in the October AMS Notices which seriously misrepresents
AMS policy and is inconsistent with the recommendations of the JCW
on such matters. The JCW is preparing a response.
4. Ethics and Editorial Policy: At its September meeting, the JCW
discussed a number of issues related to equity in the editorial process
of research journals. Rather than recommend a specific strategy, such
as blind refereeing, the JCW passed (by subsequent e-mail ballot) the
following resolution. "Because equity for women is based upon fair
treatment, rather than differential standards, the JCW supports the
principles espoused in the proposed AMS ethical guidelines." Despite
reference to a specific statement (the wording of which has since been
revised), the JCW endorsement of "the principles" is intended to
encourage fair and ethical treatment throughout the mathematical
community, and not just the AMS.
5. Evaluation of Teaching: After learning that, as a follow-up to the
JPBM report on Professional Recognition and Rewards, AMATYC,
AMS, MAA and SIAM plan a joint study on the evaluation of
teaching, JCW made the following recommendation. "We understand
that such a study will go well beyond the use of student evaluations.
Nevertheless, we wish to call to your attention two recent articles* on
student evaluations which indicate the prevalence of subtle, but
significant, gender bias which may affect some women faculty. It is
particularly noteworthy that such bias may not be apparent in
superficial studies using aggregate data, but only emerges upon more
careful analysis. Because any underlying student bias could affect
other forms of evaluation as well, we hope that the proposed study of
teaching evaluation will examine such issues in detail and take them
into account in any recommendations the participating organizations
may make."
* S. Basow, "Student Ratings of Professors Are Not Gender Blind"
(e- mail preprint reprinted in Sept.-Oct. 94 AWM Newsletter);
N. Koblitz, "Are Student Ratings Unfair to Women" AWM Newsletter
(Sept.-Oct. 1991) pp. 17-20.
6. Other Matters: Concerns were raised as to whether programs to
assist mathematicians in Russia and other countries of the Former
Soviet Union were reaching many of the substantial number of
women in those countries. The JCW is continuing to examine this
issue and anticipates making some recommendations soon.
In October, 1994, the JCW again sponsored a panel at the annual
BMS national math chairs meeting. This year's topic was "The Chair's
Role in Faculty Advancement". Margaret Cozzens, Nancy Flournoy
and John Garnett spoke on the panel which was chaired by M. Beth
Ruskai (JCW chair).
At the final session of the BMS meeting, the chair of the AMS-
IMS-MAA data committee reported the latest employment statistics
for 1994 doctorates. Because of concern that overemphasis on an
apparent gender difference in unemployment rates might have
unfortunate repercussions, the JCW chair circulated a short e-mail
message pointing out some of the confounding factors. A copy of this
is attached. The data chair responded very positively to this analysis
and continued the previous policy of inviting JCW to send a
representative to the data committee's meeting in SanFrancisco.
Respectfully submitted by M. Beth Ruskai, JCW chair
Department of Mathematics
University of Massachusetts ?€ Lowell
Lowell, MA 01854
bruskai@cs.uml.edu 617 646 9377
Attachments:
A: Incentive funding for women speakers
B: Recommendations to AMS regarding women speakers
C: JCW chair's comments on 1994 employment data
Attachment A: Incentive funding for women speakers
To: JCW
CC: Sylvia Wiegand, Chair, AMS Policy Committee on Meetings
Joan Birman, Chair, AMS Long-Range Planning Committee
AMS Committee on the Profession
Cora Sadosky, AWM President
From: M. Beth Ruskai, JCW Chair bruskai@cs.uml.edu
Re: Increasing Women Speakers
In response to a request from Sylvia Wiegand I have written down
one idea for increasing the number and % of women speakers.
Comments and other ideas are welcome.
PROBLEM: In recent years, the AMS has effectively increased the
number of women among major speakers at its meetings (to 8%).
However, the number of women in AMS special sessions is much less
satisfactory. In special sessions with all male organizers, only 7-8 % of
speakers are women (with many sessions with zero or one woman);
however, in sessions with one or more women co-organizers 15-16%
of speakers are women. While one expects some fluctuations and can
speculate on the reasons for this disparity, examination of both
meeting programs and additional data has convinced me of the
following: men tend to invite to special sessions primarily well-
established women who could also be hour speakers, while women
organizers include more promising junior women and lesser
luminaries. With 20-25% of PhD's from top math depts now going to
women, it would seem important to include more promising young
women (and men) in special sessions.
An IDEA: Therefore, I would like to propose something along the
following lines. The AMS (which currently provides no funds for any
special session speakers) should provide some funding to support
travel expenses of junior speakers (both male and female) at special
sessions with the amount allotted to a particular session correlated to
the number of women and under-represented minority (WAUM)
speakers.
For example, a session with N WAUM speakers (of any age) would
get N x (amount) $;
or one with 2 or more might get $300. + (N-2) x $100. The organizer
would decide how the resulting $400.-$600. should be distributed to the
junior speakers in the session.
Thus, it would be legit to invite 3 women (2 local and 1 senior) and use
the funds for a young man with no travel funds and high expenses. (I
trust that no one would be crass enough to not give a junior woman
with high travel expenses a fair share.)
COST: In Jan. 93, there were 40 women speakers in special sessions; in
all of 1992 there were about 100. With an average of $100./WAUM
speakers and this program doubles their number, the annual cost
would be $20,000. A pilot program for the Jan. 94 SanFrancisco
meeting could be tried for only $10,000.
Comments:
1) This i basically a carrot (as opposed to stick) approach. When
men are simply pressured to invite more women, they inevitably
think of and ask only the obvious big names. This proposal provides a
mechanism and incentive for them to also invite junior women. But
by allowing funds to be used for both men and women, young men
will also benefit so that backlash is avoided. In fact, one would hope
that the presence of more promising young people will lead to better
special sessions so that everyone benefits.
2) In preliminary discussions, some people suggested that many
deans and dept. chairs would find funds for any young person invited
to speak at such a session so that AMS funding is not needed.
Although true, this is not universal, and some institutions (like mine)
would only pay half-cost. Moreover, it is precisely for this reason that
such a program could be carried out at very MODEST COST. It is Not
necessary to provide full funding for all junior speakers. On the
contrary, rather than dividing the pool for young speakers evenly or
according to some formula, organizers should be encouraged to do the
following:
Talk with each junior person to determine their expenses
and other sources of funding. If necessary, offer advice on approaching
the dean or dept. chair (and certainly offer to write a formal letter of
invitation it that will help.) Then use the funds for those with
significant unreimbursed expenses. If this is done, a side benefit
would be increased interaction between senior and junior people in
various subspecialties.
3) This idea came from an APS program to encourage more
women colloquium speakers. In essence, if a physics dept. has two or
more women colloquium speakers in one academic year, the APS will
reimburse (up to $500.) the dept. for the expenses of the Second
speaker. [The APS will reimburse the more expensive speaker if
requested; a dept. strapped for funds could invite a local woman (and
take her to lunch), and then use the APS funds to fly in a big name!]
This program has been wildly successful. The APS council budgeted
$5000. the first year, but received requests for nearly twice that! (And I
have personally been invited to give 3 physics colloquia in one year.)
The APS has now tripled the amount to $15,000./year, which supports
more than 30 women speakers.
Some people felt math should imitate the physics colloquia
program. My own feeling is that the special sessions present a greater
need in math. However, I would welcome other opinions, as well as
suggestions for more "variations on this theme".
4) It is unlikely that NSF would fund either program, although
other groups (NSA, Sloan, DOD ??) might. How should this be
handled? Should JCW encourage AWM, AMS, JPBM, or some other
group to submit a proposal. Does someone want to take this on??
In any case, I would personally like to see the AMS immediately
appropriate at least $10,000. for a pilot program for the SanFrancisco
special sessions.
Attachment B: Recommendations to AMS regarding women speakers
To: Robert Fossum, AMS secretary
From: M. Beth Ruskai, JCW Chair
Re: Women Speakers at AMS Meetings
Date: Fri, 30 Sept 1994
The AMS-ASA-AWM-IMS-MAA-NCTM-SIAM Joint Committee on
Women in the Mathematical Sciences (JCW) has passed the following
three resolutions.
Resolution #1 (Special session speakers)
The JCW notes with concern the continued under-
representation of women as speakers in special sessions at AMS meetings,
particularly the following troubling phenomena:
i) the well-documented correlation between the gender of the organizer(s)
and the number of women speakers in a session
ii) the extent to which a lack of women speakers seems due to the
reluctance of some organizers to invite promising junior women.
It is incumbent upon the AMS to address this problem, not
simply by trying to increase the total number of women speakers and
organizers, but by changing the underlying culture of the process of
speaker selection so that {\em all} organizers (male and female) seek out
and invite more women speakers. Moreover, we believe this is part of a
larger problem of rethinking the purpose of special sessions and
providing guidelines to organizers.
Therefore, the JCW recommends that guidelines for organizers
include the following suggestions.
a) Successful sessions include both well-known senior people and junior
people who are starting to contribute to an area. Organizers are expected
to reach out to junior mathematicians who have new results, but have
not yet established reputations. At a minimum, leading researchers and
centers in a field should be contacted for suggestions of junior people
whose work the organizers may not yet be familiar with.
b) If the preliminary list of special session invitees has few women, the
organizers should consult others, particularly senior women in related
fields, to insure that they have not inadvertently overlooked some.
c) One purpose of special sessions is to provide an opportunity for junior
people to meet others in their field and become part of the mathematical
research community. To facilitate this, organizers are encouraged to
arrange an informal dinner, lunch or social event for participants and
attendees at their session. Whenever possible, social events and talks of
junior people should be scheduled relatively early in the session to enable
people to benefit from new contacts.
The JCW also recommends that the AMS monitor the
effectiveness of these guidelines and other strategies by collecting and
reporting data on the number of women speakers in special sessions,
including correlation with gender of organizers, to JCW, COMC and
CoProf in a very timely manner. If necessary, the AMS should reconsider
the possibility of a program of incentive funding in sufficient time to
implement a trial for Jan., 1996 meeting.
Resolution #2 (Funding junior mathematicians)
Participation in intensive research meetings, such as the AMS
summer research conferences, is vital to the professional growth of
research mathematicians. Therefore, the JCW urges the AMS, not only to
provide funding for junior speakers at AMS special sessions, but to
supplement NSF funds with additional AMS funds to support the
participation of junior mathematicians at the AMS summer research
conferences.
Resolution #3 (Major Conference co-sponsorship)
In recent years the AMS has effectively increased the
participation of women mathematicians in its activities, especially in the
roster of invited speakers at its regular national and section meetings.
However, the Society has also co-sponsored a number of major symposia
with no or few women speakers and no women on the organizing
committees. These include, not only the 1988 von Neumann symposium
and the 1989 Gibbs symposium, but several recent and forthcoming
events, namely,
* the 1993 Symposium on Mathematics of Computation (which had no
women speakers in the first announcement),
* the Oct., 1994 Wiener Centennial Symposium at MIT (which has only
one woman)** and
* the Nov.-Dec., 1994 Wiener Centenary Congress at Michigan State
(which has no women speakers).
None of these three conferences has women on the organizing
committees.
The JCW recommends that the AMS include women on the organizing
committees of all future major symposia which it
co-sponsors.
** Nancy Kopell is the only woman on this program. It was reported that
another women was invited, but declined. However, it is particularly
noteworthy that neither of the two Wiener conferences has any speakers
in computer science, a relevant subfield which has no lack of women
making major contributions, including some in the MIT department of EE.
Attachment C: JCW chair's comments on 1994 employment data
At the BMS math chairs meeting on Sat., John Fulton reported
on the most recent AMS-IMS-MAA survey to appear in the Nov.
Notices. Unfortunately, there was an overemphasis on an apparent
gender differential in % of 93 PhD's who are unemployed, with the
repeated claim that the burden fell most heavily on US citizen men.
In fact, the more detailed data revealed a far more complex picture,
suggesting that other factors may be responsible for the difference.
In particular:
* women are much more likely to get Phd's in statistics, where the
unemployment rate is significantly lower.
* women are Not getting positions at PhD math departments in excess
of their proportion in the pool
* US citizen women are much, much more likely to get first positions
at MS and Bachelor's math depts. than either US citizen men or non-citizens.
Some facts for 1993 PhD's:
18% (75/420)of PhD's FROM group I math depts. went to women
14% (11/78) of those getting positions AT group I were women
33% (52/157) of PhD's FROM group IV (statistics) depts. went to women
42% (10/24) of those getting positions AT group IV were women
7.4% (17/228) of PhD's in probability/statistics were reported as unemployed
22% of all math PhD'S went to women
26% of all math PhD'S to US citizens went to women
21% of those getting positions AT groups I-III (math PhD) were women
19% of those getting positions AT group I or a research institute were women
37.5% of those getting positions AT master's depts were women
34% of those getting positions AT 4-year colleges were women
16% of those reported as unemployed were women
Looking at the data slightly differently
15% of US citizen Men were reported unemployed
8% of US citizen Women were reported unemployed
12% of non-citizen Men were reported unemployed
11% of non-citizen Women were reported unemployed
20% of US citizen Men got positions in PhD math depts.
20% of US citizen Women got positions in PhD math depts.
29% of US citizen Men got positions in non-PhD math depts.
45% of US citizen Women got positions in non-PhD math depts.
Clearly there are many causes for concern, including high unemployment
and underemployement for ALL groups of new PhD's. Those who are
interested, should read the full report in the Nov. Notices rather than
jumping to simplistic conclusions on the basis of partial data.
Additional information on employement patterns in the 90's is summarized
in my article "Time for Advancement" to appear in the Dec. MAA Focus.
(e-mail and hard-copy preprints are available on request.)
Beth Ruskai, JCW chair