September 1996: Volume 10, Number 1

Revising Traditional Leadership Models

As I considered how to provide visual illustrations for this article about women administrators at IUB, I browsed through a popular, comprehensive, and fairly current collection of computerized clip art looking for images of women "bosses." The clip art gallery included representations of executives in a variety of contexts and poses. Yet all the bosses shared one defining characteristic--they were all male.

Of course, at IUB not all bosses are male. For the 1995-96 academic year, 26% (60 out of 232) of all executive professional appointees and 22% (46 out of 222) of faculty administrative appointees were women. And women are being named to top positions at colleges and universities across the country. In 1994, women constituted 29% of first-time presidents compared to 14% in 1990. Despite these gains, the comments of women administrators at IUB about how their gender has interfaced with their professional achievements offer some explanation for the conspicuous absence of women bosses in the clip art gallery. Although women are now achieving representation in leadership positions, our dominant modes of leadership remain masculine in character.

By way of gathering information about what gender issues women in administrative leadership positions at IUB feel are important, we sent a short, informal questionnaire to all women executives (we identified them as PA16 and above and faculty with administrative titles) on the Bloomington campus. Fourteen of the 31 women who responded to our questions said they believed their gender had negatively influenced their professional achievement. Twelve said their gender had not been an inhibiting factor in their professional growth, and five offered no conclusive statement in this regard. But nearly half of our respondents said they have to work harder than their male colleagues--that they have to "go the extra mile in order to appear equal."

Gender Stereotypes and Differences

In response to our questions, many women noted that gender stereotypes can affect others' perceptions of them as effective leaders. "There's a pervasive view that women are too emotional and that compromises their credibility as leaders," noted one woman administrator. Another commented that women's tendency to empathize with others and to take a more personal approach to leadership suggests that they are "patsies" who don't have the capability to make tough decisions. "My male colleagues are surprised," notes one woman, "when they see how tough I can be." Yet many of our respondents felt that women administrators' typically more nurturing and participatory leadership styles makes them and their units more productive.

Commenting on leadership styles that do not follow traditional (male) models, many of our respondents observed that their problem-solving processes may look less effective to male colleagues. One woman offers the following suggestions: "I think a young woman aspiring to administrative leadership should demonstrate her ability to reason from multiple perspectives, synthesize truth from various sources, articulate well-considered positions, and use argument as a negotiating rather than a battle instrument. In a university environment, these are powerful assets that can overcome a lot of gender stereotyping."

The Male Culture of Decision Making

By far the most common observation we received addressed the "good old boys" networks and environments from which women are generally excluded. One of our respondents quoted an emerita professor who used to say that "the business of her department was carried on in the men's room." Another commented that a great deal of decision making goes on in the locker room or in a bar after a squash game. One woman noted "I'm not an avid sports fan, and this is a drawback. Some of my women colleagues keep themselves informed about what IU and other (male) teams are doing. That allows them to enter, although inevitably peripherally, the lingua franca of our male colleagues." Observing that this exclusion is sometimes unintentional and that the "good old boys" network is slowly eroding, some women commented on the necessity of women making a concerted effort to fit in by taking time to visit with male colleagues and offering invitations for lunch, golf, or bridge games. But others urged that women could more advantageously concentrate on building their own informal networks.

Despite taking initiatives to fit in, many women said that their minority status and the gendered nature of institutional authority frequently posed problems for them. "Generally speaking," writes one woman,

male administrators are unaware of how few women there are in administrative roles. We have to contend with societal prejudice against women in leadership. On this campus, the percentages tell the story. This is still an environment in which the male [administrator] tends to be the ultimate authority, resulting in a father knows best' atmosphere.
Another of our respondents noted that we currently have no women deans of schools and that women who have achieved fairly high-level administrative positions usually report to a more highly placed male administrator.

The Undermining Effect of Salary Inequities

Although the numbers of women in administrative roles have grown steadily over the last twenty years, many of our respondents commented that women administrators receive salaries lower than those of their male counterparts.

Our respondents frequently noted that "reviews and changes in these pay discrepancies would go a long way towards assisting women in establishing positions of equity." But they urged that such changes should be initiated on an institution-wide rather than an individual basis. "The women," observes one administrator," are expected to state the problem and file grievances to correct it rather than the institution preventing the problem in the first place or assessing the situation to identify areas of inequity." Another woman pointed out the importance of annually publicizing each year salaries for men and women in equivalent positions. Since our questionnaire did not include a question about salary, these comments about salary and equity are particularly interesting.

A faculty administrator responding to our questions observed that the "central feature of administration is authority. In the academy, men have the authority." She goes on to assert that even with the aid of institutional initiatives, women must convince their colleagues that they have leadership authority and take advantages of opportunities to exercise leadership in a variety of contexts "locally, regionally, and nationally."

Susan Moke

Supreme Court Update on Discrimination Cases

During the 1995-96 term, the United States Supreme Court decided two constitutional cases directly concerning gender equity issues. US v. Virginia Military Institute was a straightforward sex discrimination challenge to Virginia's public, all-male military college. Romer v. Evans raised difficult constitutional issues in a challenge to a referendum invalidating laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

A Public, All-Male Military College?

Virginia Military Institute was one of two state-supported, all-male colleges in the United States. (The other, the Citadel, admitted four women this year after the Supreme Court's decision in VMI.) The school's stated mission is to produce "citizen-soldiers imbued with a love of learning, confident in the functions and attitudes of leadership, possessing a high sense of public purpose, advocates of the American democracy and free enterprise system, and ready . . . . to defend their country in time of national peril."

VMI argued that admission of women would undermine the school's mission; women could not be accommodated by VMI's "adversative" model of education, which included "physical rigor, mental stress, absolute equality of treatment, absence of privacy, minute regulation of behavior, and indoctrination in desirable values." Opting to establish an alternative program at Mary Baldwin College, VMI concluded that women could not withstand the rigors of VMI's approach: "Real," not stereotypical, "psychological and sociological" differences between women and men justified excluding women from VMI, it argued.

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court held VMI's single-sex program unconstitutional. The case comes within the established legal framework that most classifications on the basis of sex violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The question is whether gender-based classifications are "substantially related to an important governmental objective" that cannot be served by a gender-neutral law.

Justice Ginsburg's VMI opinion canvasses the historical exclusion of women from higher education in general and specifically in Virginia. She discusses inequalities of staff, courses, and resources of the "alternative" program and the lack of fit between the state's ostensible purpose in having diversity in higher education and the reality that the state supported no all-female school and only the all-male military academy. She notes that only an "exceedingly persuasive justification" could be used to justify sex discrimination or classifications based on sex; no such justification existed in this case.

VMI was a simple case. The notion separate but unequal (or, until the alternative program, separate and nonexistent) has violated the constitution for over forty years. But the opinion leaves open the question of the constitutionality of any single-sex school receiving governmental funding. Indeed, single-sex schools truly meant to compensate for historical exclusions or for present disadvantages that are well documented may well pass constitutional muster. But, as has happened with arguments to justify maintaining historically Black public colleges and universities, these arguments may not succeed in maintaining all-female schools.

Present disadvantages that are well documented may well pass constitutional muster. But, as has happened with arguments to justify maintaining historically Black public colleges and universities, these arguments may not succeed in maintaining all-female schools.

Colorado's Referendum Challenged

Romer v. Evans, a particularly important case for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, was not an easy case for the Court. Colorado voters ratified an amendment to the Colorado Constitution in a closely watched election in 1991.

"Amendment 2" provided that no governmental entity in Colorado could adopt any law in which "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute, be the basis of, or entitle any person to claim any minority status, quota preference, protected status, or claim of discrimination." The amendment invalidated portions of the anti-discrimination ordinances in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen, as well as several state executive orders prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Proponents of Amendment 2 and the State argued that the amendment only denied "special protection" to lesbians and gays. The Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this claim, as the amendment precluded any protection from discrimination enjoyed by others. Yet even if lesbians and gays were singled out as a group that could not claim discrimination, it was not clear that the Supreme Court would find any constitutional violation.

Six justices, however, agreed that Amendment 2 violated the Constitution by denying a single class of persons, but no others, specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination, as well as precluding the adoption of new anti-discrimination laws and policies without another constitutional amendment. The Court cited and rejected without much analysis Colorado's asserted purposes for Amendment 2--that it was intended to conserve scarce resources used to enforce anti-discrimination laws protecting members of racial and ethnic groups and women and that it protected freedom of association and free exercise of religion for landlords and employers.

The Court's real objection to Amendment 2 undoubtedly was a deep skepticism about any of the asserted reasons for the amendment in light of the prejudice it expressed against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals; prejudice is irrational and cannot justify singling out a group. Justice Kennedy's opinion notes that the Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," and concludes that "Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals to make them unequal to everyone else," something the Constitution does not permit.

In dissent, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, accused the majority of succumbing to political trendiness and of "terminal silliness." The only prejudice involved, he reasoned, was "moral disapproval of homosexual conduct." Such disapproval constitutes a legitimate state interest, as society properly can find homosexuality immoral and socially harmful.

Although Romer was an important victory for gays and lesbians, it might be of limited value in challenging other, more specific, laws forbidding gay marriages or military service.

Contributed by Professor of Law Lynne Henderson, who teaches in the areas of constitutional law and feminist theory.

From the Dean

Was it only a sign of contemporary politics that both Susan Moli nari, the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention, and Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Convention used the metaphor that women find themselves stretched too thin? According to a recent Gallup poll, one of the leading stressors for women was concern with having enough time to do everything. In a recent conversation I had with a woman faculty member, she mused that despite her plan to use the summer to "catch up," she found that she was starting the fall semester already behind.

At OWA we also planned to use our summer to catch up. We asked Professor Lynne Henderson to catch us up on the activities of the United States Supreme Court. We designed our special pullout section about OWA services and programs, which we hope will find a place on everyone's bulletin board. We entered cyberspace--check out our WEB page. Special thanks to Julie Thomas, one of our GAs and a graduate student in Russian history, for her work in getting us on the Web (and helping us stay there). We developed our new feature, the MR Index, with fun and startling facts. As always we welcome your comments.

We would also like to welcome two new staff members to the Office for Women's Affairs. Carol McCord has joined the OWA staff as the new Assistant to the Dean. Carol holds a B.A. in biology and psychology from Earlham College and an M.S.W. from IU. She has worked as a staff therapist at the South Central Community Health Center and at Planned Parenthood where she provided patient counseling and programming in a variety of educational and professional settings.

Heidi Goebel joins the OWA staff as our new graduate assistant coordinating the Women Partner's Program. A native of Crawfordsville, Indiana, Heidi received her B.A. in English and business from IU in 1994. She is currently a third-year law student active in the Moot Court Competition and the Protective Order Project.

Events to Note

Take Back the Night

Last year, 475 people attended the annual Take Back the Night March to protest violence against women. This year, the march will begin in Dunn Meadow on Sunday, September 29 at 7:00p.m. and will proceed to the Monroe County Courthouse steps. Prior to the march, a rally will be held at 6:30 in Dunn Meadow. And on Saturday, September 28 at 8:00p.m., a candlelight vigil at Showalter Fountain is scheduled in remembrance of women who have been victims of violence. For more information, contact julthoma@ indiana.edu or visit the Take Back the Night World Wide Web site at http:\\ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~eneuman/TBTN.html.

AWIS Announces Fall Semester Programs

The Association for Women in Science holds its annual reception for undergraduate and graduate students and faculty women in science on September 25, 4:00-6:00p.m. in the Walnut Room at the IMU. Each of the following events meets in the Leiber Room of Jordan Hall.

For more information, contact dhenshel@indiana.edu.

OWA Awards Ceremony

Please join us on Thursday, October 3, 1996 at 4:00p.m. in the University Club as we honor Professor of English Judith Anderson, recipient of OWA's 1995-96 Distinguished Scholar Award, and Anne Bolt and Danusha Goska, recipients of the Eva Kagan-Kans Award for excellence in a graduate research paper. We will also announce the recipient of our new staff award which recognizes an IUB staff member who has significantly advanced the status and concerns of women.

National Hispanic Heritage Month

Poet, novelist, and essayist Ana Castillo will present the keynote address for this year's celebrations sponsored by the Office of Latino Affairs. Castillo will speak October 3, at 8:00p.m. in Woodburn Hall 100.

Getting in the Frame: A Cartoon Contest and Exhibition Depicting Women

Entrants may be male or female, amateur or professional cartoonists, from the campus or the community at large. Entries accepted October 1-21; exhibited in the IMU Gallery October 28-November 8. All entries must portray women in a humorous but positive light. Check posted flyers, or call 855-3849 for entry size and presentation specifications. First Prize: $150; Second Prize: $100. Even if you are not an artist, send us your favorite cartoons about women for our exhibit. Mail photocopies of the cartoons, along with a note about where they were published and why they hit your funny bone, to Cartoons at OWA.

In the Company of Women

This semester, the Office for Women's Affairs will offer a five-part workshop titled "In the Company of Women." All sessions will meet from 6:30-8:30p.m. in Memorial Hall 127. Participants may register for the complete workshop series ($50) or for individual sessions ($10).

Come join us! To register, call 855-3849 or e-mail owa@indiana.edu.

MAJORITY REPORT INDEX

Sept. M.R. Index Sources:

1,2 IU Budget Office; 3 OWA e-mail survey; 4 IU Budget Office; 5 Monroe/Owen County Medical Society; 6 Harper's (Feb. 1996); 7 Harper's (Apr. 1996); 8 New York Times Magazine (June 23, 1996); 9,10 Final Report of the NCAA Gender Equity Task Force, 1993; 11 IU Athletics; 12 Harper's (May 1996); 13,14 Office of the Dean of Faculties; 15 IU Budget Office; 16 Harper's (Feb. 1996); 17,18,19 Office of the Dean of Faculties; 20 Marketing Department of One World Enterprises; 21,22,23,24,25 Office of the Dean of Faculties; 26 NCAA Gender Equity Study, 1992; 27 NCAA Division I Operating Manual; 28; IU Athletics; 29, 30, IU Budget Office.

New Women Faculty at IUB

This year 72 new tenured and tenure-track professors joined the IUB community. Twenty-five of these new faculty hires are women. In this and subsequent issues of the Majority Report we will introduce IUB's new women faculty members.

Assistant Professor of Education Barbara Bichelmeyer (Ph.D. from the University of Kansas) comes to the department of Instructional Systems Technology from the University of Kansas, where she taught graduate and undergraduate courses in educational communications and technology. Professor Bichelmeyer's research addresses the design of instruction, the integration of technology in education, and systems of management.

Associate Professor of Education Catherine A. Brown (Ed.D. from the University of Georgia) joins the department of curriculum and instruction. Professor Brown comes to IU from the University of Pittsburgh where she worked on QUASAR, a project designed to study and foster the reform of mathematics instructional programs in urban middle schools. Professor Brown has also been an associate professor of mathematics and education at Virginia Tech. Her research interests include middle school mathematics teacher training and professional development, the reform of mathematics instruction, and sociocultural perspectives on learning.

Sue Brown (Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota), assistant professor of Accounting and Information Systems in the School of Business, teaches data management. Her research interests include the implementation and use of information systems as well as the role of communication technologies in business, education, and society.

Assistant Professor of Human Development/Family Studies Deborah Fravel (Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota) joins the department of Applied Health Sciences in the School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Her research interests address family stress, specifically boundary ambiguity in adoptive families and in families with missing children.

Genevieve Manset (Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara), an assistant professor of Special Education in the School of Education, comes to IU from SUNY Geneseo, where she taught graduate and undergraduate courses in special education. She has served as director of Project RISE (Research on Inclusive School Environments), which examined the efficacy of inclusive school environments for students with mild disabilities.

Last Updated: May 9, 1997
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~owa/96_septm.html
OWA Homepage
Comments: E-mail: owa@indiana.edu
Copyright1996, The Trustees of Indiana University