Chapter 15

a. AAUP report
An A.A.U.P. fact sheet on the status of women shows that in academic 2000-1, women made up only 31 percent of the faculty at doctoral-level institutions and 40 percent of the faculty at baccalaureate institutions. Women did, of course, make up 50 percent of the faculty at institutions without ranks.

The numbers are even worse in the sciences. A 1999-2000 report from the Association of American Medical Colleges shows that the percentage of tenured women on the faculty at medical schools has stayed exactly the same for several years15 percent. At my current employer, Yale University, only 11 percent of the tenured professors are women. And a 1998 report from the Higher Education Research Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles says that female faculty members "continue to serve in the lower academic ranks more often than do men" and are "less likely to be tenured."

Everyone seems to agree that there are plenty of outstanding female graduate students. "The problem is not in the pipeline," they say. But somewhere between the pipeline and the tenure track, tons of women get discouraged and bail out.

Send comments

(back to contents)

b. AHA Report

This report was prepared by the AHA's Committee on Women Historians, by Carla Hesse, with the assistance of Katharine Norris and Gail Phillips.

Recent National Research Council Summary Reports of Doctoral Recipients from United States Universities (1991, 1992) demonstrate that a commitment to the principle of "affirmative action" works. As a consequence of affirmative action policies the percentage of women and minorities in the historical profession increased dramatically in the 1970s. Since 1980 the number of women has continued to rise while the gains of minorities have leveled off considerably. The American Historical Association remains committed to the goal of enriching the profession of history through the continued diversification of its practitioners. The main obstacle toward that end remains the small pool of minority Ph.D.'s. Every effort should be made to increase these numbers. Given the current underrepresentation of minorities in the larger pool of history Ph.D.'s affirmative action policies are still one of the most effective mechanisms (along with scholarship programs) to remedy the problem of underrepresentation.

The American Historical Association's Report on the Status and Hiring of Women and Minority Historians in Academia has been prepared by the Committee on Women Historians in consultation with the Professional Division, and has been endorsed by the Council. It is designed to provide useful information by which history departments may measure their progress in providing equity for women and minority historians.

Appointments and tenure
According to the most recent National Research Council (NRC) Summary Reports (1991, 1992) in 1992, American universities produced 725 new history Ph.D.'s; of these 34.2% were women.

Unpublished NRC data from 1991 reveal that women constitute 18.7% of all history Ph.D.'s (granted1956-91) with academic employment. 69.6% of males in academic employment are tenured, compared to 48.1% of women. Women are more than twice as likely as men to hold nontenure-track jobs (4.2% of men compared to 9.9% of women). Based on data from a survey sent to U.S. history departments listed in the 1994ñ95 edition of the Directory of History Departments and Organizations in the United States and Canada, part time historians are almost twice as likely to be male as female, but women account for a higher proportion (35%) of part time than full time faculty.

Recent Ph.D.'s: Women comprise 33.3% of academically employed historians with Ph.D.'s granted between 1986-91 (For the percentage of doctorates earned by women in those years see priority #2 below). 80.8% of women hold faculty positions, as compared to 84.5% of men. Women remain underrepresented at the level of full professor; 4.8% of men hold this appointment, compared to 0.2% of women, and overrepresented in adjunct positions: only1.9% of men hold this status, compared to 4.9% of women.

At the entry level, there is evidence of growing equity. In the 1991 NRC survey, women represented 33.3% of academically employed history Ph.D.'s who had received their doctorates within the past five years, and in this cohort, slightly more women than men held tenure-track positions (59.1% of women; 58.2% of men).

For the cohort six through fifteen years since Ph.D., women represented just 26.6% of all academically employed historians, fewer held tenure (60.4% of men; 53.4% of women), and more occupied nontenure-track positions (10.9% of women; 6.0% of men).

For the cohort sixteen through thirty-five years since Ph.D., women represented 12.4% of all academically employed historians, with 66.9% having tenure, compared to 84.9% of men. In this cohort, 3.3% of untenured women occupied tenure-track positions (1.8% of untenured men in this cohort are in tenure-track jobs)

Priority #1: To maintain progress toward equity in employing women in academic positions
Since women constitute 34% of current history Ph.D.'s (1992), they have comprised over 30% of all history Ph.D.'s since 1975 and about one-third of Ph.D.'s each year since 1984ódepartments should attempt to reflect these figures in their permanent tenure-track appointments. In seeking candidates, departments should recognize that historians of women are also specialists in traditional chronological and geographical fields.

Priority #2: More rapid promotion and tenure for women historians
Even if every third or fourth grant of tenure were to go to a woman this policy would produce only a very modest increase in the absolute numbers of women among all tenured historians. Departments should continue to remain attentive to the goal of gender parity in making tenure decisions.

This goal will be easily achieved by those departments that already have a high proportion of women in untenured or tenure-line positions. Success will however, require more effort by departments that lack women in the tenure "pipeline." Current evidence supports cautious optimism about the expansion of the job market in the 1990s; departments should use new positions as opportunities to redress imbalances and to recruit women into tenure-track positions. In undertaking affirmative action, departments should keep in mind the percentages of women among history Ph.D.'s, as shown in Table 1 (page 3; Women as Percentage of PhD Cohorts in History,1930-1992).

Source: NRC Humanities Doctorates in the United States,1991 Profile. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994

Priority #3: Recognizing spousal/partner issues
Many candidates make career decisions within the context of committed relationships with spouses or partners with their own job and career concerns. To hire and retain strong faculty members and to ensure equal opportunity for women, some colleges and universities will need to begin to respond to dual career couples with new institutional policies. The Committee on Women Historians continues to discuss possible guidelines that would recognize the complex issues of affirmative action and department autonomy. Although no gender-specific statistical data is available about marital status of historians, the Committee is concerned by the continuing lack of gender parity in the statistics on part-time employment, suggesting that women more often than men are compromising full-time careers to accommodate spouses and partners. Departments, and institutions more generally, should think creatively in assisting and accommodating relationships in hiring and retention procedures.

Median Annual Salaries of Full-time Employed History Ph.D's, 1991, by Years since Ph.D.(in thousands of dollars).

Source: NRC Humanities Doctorates in the United States: 1991 Profile, Washington D.C. National Academy Press, 1994, p. 21.

The incomplete data on salaries suggest a pattern similar to that found in employment. Recent women Ph.D.'s enjoy a more favorable position relative to their male counterparts, one approaching - and in some cases exceeding - equity. But salary inequities between men and women increase with the number of years since the Ph.D. Overall, full-time employed women Ph.D.'s in the humanities make 87% of men's salaries. In four-year colleges and universities, women Ph.D.'s. make 84% of men's salaries.

Priority #4: Redressing salary/pension inequities
Departments should consider measures to redress historic inequity in male and female salaries Percentage raises mean that existing inequities grow greater each year and continue into retirement, leaving women with smaller pensions. Salary committees, department chairs, and college and university administrators should support lump-sum adjustments for senior women to bring the salaries and pensions of women into line with those of comparable male colleagues.

Minorities and women
Minority women and men are still deplorably scarce among history Ph.D.'s, as is made clear in new data from the National Research Council (8.2% of 1991 Ph.D.'s). The following charts, document low percentages of minority Ph.D.'s and the absence of sustained improvement since 1975, especially notable is the lack of positive change in the late 1980s when the number of history Ph.D.'s overall increased significantly.

Contrary to a commonly voiced notion of minority women's advantage in the profession relative to minority men, NRC data show that women hold 38.6% of Ph.D.'s granted to minorities in 1991. Since the numbers of Ph.D.'s granted to particular minority groups each year are so small that percentages by sex are meaningless, the graph below compares all history Ph.D.'s granted to minority men and women between 1975 and 1991.

In 1991, 44 history Ph.D.'s were granted to minority persons. Of that cohort, 17, or 38.6% were women. Minority persons represented 8% of all history Ph.D.'s (n=552); minority women were 3.1% of all history Ph.D.'s and 8.1% of all female Ph.D.'s.

In 1975, 90% of Ph.D. recipients were white compared to 88.9% in 1991.

Priority #5: To create a critical mass of minority and women historians
Given the dramatic lack of change overall in the percentage of minority Ph.D.'s since 1975, departments should implement measures to increase the number of minority graduate students in history. It is crucial that history departments recruit minority women for their graduate programs and support their doctoral work. In light of the changing legal climate, departments need to insure equity in the distribution fellowships and teaching assistantships. Furthermore, to increase the pool of minority women in graduate programs, departments should take active steps to encourage minority under-graduates to go on to graduate school.

The complete statistical data prepared for this report, including an appendix found in the print version is available in numerical form from the Committee on Women Historians upon request. Contact Committee on Women Historians, American Historical Association, 400 A Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003.

(From website aha@theaha.org)

Send comments

(back to contents)

c. ND's "non-discrimination" statement
The University of Notre Dame has the following, legally binding, non-discrimination statement.

“The University of Notre Dame does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, veteran status, or age in the administration of any of its educational programs, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletic and other school-administered programs or in employment.

In 1997, the Officers of the University were asked by the Faculty Senate and other campus groups to include "sexual orientation" in the university's non-discrimination policy, but after consideration, the Officers refused, citing potential legal problems - as Notre Dame's understanding of the difference between "sexual orientation" and "homosexual activity" is not shared by the society at large. ”

Instead of an expanded non-discrimination clause, the University now publishes the following:

The Spirit of Inclusion in All University Publications
"Strangers and sojourners no longer..." (Ephesians 2:19)

The University of Notre Dame strives for a spirit of inclusion among the members of this community for distinct reasons articulated in our Christian tradition. We prize the uniqueness of all persons as God's creatures. We welcome all people, regardless of color, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social or economic class, and nationality, for example, precisely because of Christ's calling to treat others as we desire to be treated. We value gay and lesbian members of this community as we value all members of this community. We condemn harassment of any kind, and University policies proscribe it. We consciously create an environment of mutual respect, hospitality and warmth in which none are strangers and all may flourish.

One of the essential tests of social justice within any Christian community is its abiding spirit of inclusion. Scriptural accounts of Jesus provide a constant witness of this inclusiveness. Jesus sought out and welcomed all people into the Kingdom of God — the gentile as well as the Jew, women as well as men, the poor as well as the wealthy, the slave as well as the free, the infirm as well as the healthy. The social teachings of the Catholic Church promote a society founded on justice and love, in which all persons possess inherent dignity as children of God. The individual and collective experiences of Christians have also provided strong warrants for the inclusion of all persons of good will in their communal living. Christians have found their life together enriched by the different qualities of their many members, and they have sought to increase this richness by welcoming others who bring additional gifts, talents and backgrounds
to the community.

The spirit of inclusion at Notre Dame flows from our character as a community of scholarship, teaching, learning and service founded upon Jesus Christ. As the Word through whom all things were made, Christ is the source of the order of all creation and of the moral law which is written in our hearts. As the incarnate Word, Christ taught the law of love of God and sent the Holy Spirit that we might live lives of love and receive the gift of eternal life. For Notre Dame, Christ is the law by which all other laws are to be judged. As a Catholic institution of higher learning, in the governance of our common life we look to the teaching of Christ, which is proclaimed in Sacred Scripture and tradition, authoritatively interpreted by Church teaching, articulated in normative understandings of the human person, and continually deepened by the wisdom borne of inquiry and experience. The rich heritage of the Catholic faith informs and transforms our search for truth and our understanding of contemporary challenges in higher education.

This statement was adopted by the Officers of the University on August 27, 1997 in conjunction with an Open Letter to the Notre Dame Community.

An Open Letter to the Notre Dame Community, Edwin A. Malloy, C.S.C., President
The Officers of the University have been asked to modify the University's non-discrimination clause to include sexual orientation. In Spring 1996 the Ad Hoc Committee on Gay and Lesbian Student Needs recommended that the officers consider this issue. The Faculty Senate and the Student Senate passed resolutions during the 1996-97 academic year supporting this change. In addition, the College Democrats, a student organization, submitted a petition signed by many students in favor of this change. During the1996-97 academic year and this past summer, the officers of the University studied this issue - first, in a subcommittee I appointed, and then in the Officers' Group as a whole.

The officers began their discussions by reflecting on the teachings of the Catholic Church relating to gay and lesbian persons. The Church distinguishes between homosexuality as an orientation and sexual activity between homosexual persons. The Church teaches that homosexual orientation in a person is neither sinful nor evil. The call of the gospels is a call to inclusiveness - to a recognition of the dignity inherent in each person that flows from our creation in the image and likeness of a loving God, who brings us together as brothers and sisters through Jesus Christ on a common journey back to the God who created us.

The Church also teaches that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are called to live chaste lives in accordance with their vocation as single people, married couples, priests or religious. Specifically, the Church asks all people to reserve sexual union to the covenanted and consecrated union of a man and woman in marriage. Neither heterosexual union outside the permanent bond of marriage nor homosexual union is morally acceptable.

The University has tried to speak with an authentic voice on both of these dimensions of Church teaching--on homosexual orientation and on sexual union. In a number of different settings in recent years, we have stated publicly that we prize the gay and lesbian members of this community as children of God, entitled to the same respect as all other members of this community. Moreover, we deplore harassment of any kind as antithetical to the nature of this community as a Christian community. Our discriminatory harassment policy specifically precludes harassment based on sexual orientation. At the same time and with an equally strong voice, we strive to set policy and make operating decisions — perhaps most notably in the area of student life — in a manner that supports the teaching of the Church calling all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, to reserve sexual union to those who are married.

In all of our actions we have been guided by gospel values that we regard as normative for this community. We have premised our decisions and framed our statements on issues relating to the gay and lesbian members of this community on the language of Church teaching. Indeed, we believe that some of the deepest aspirations of this community flow from the law of Christ and not necessarily from civil law.

The University exists, however, within a societal and cultural milieu that does not always accept gospel values as normative. Moreover, society at large uses language in ways that mean different things to different people. With respect to this issue, for example, American society does not always use the phrase "sexual orientation" to mean only orientation. Many people use this single phrase in a manner that entangles what we regard as two distinct concepts - homosexual persons and homosexual conduct. Within society at large, the phrase "sexual orientation" sometimes becomes a term that does not admit of distinction between sexual orientation and the manner in which people live out their sexual orientation--a distinction that is critical to us as a Catholic institution.

We have been asked to change our non-discrimination clause to add sexual orientation as a protected category. Institutional non-discrimination clauses are highly stylized statements which are legally binding. Neither federal nor state law mandates that sexual orientation be included in non-discrimination clauses. Thus, like a number of other institutions, our clause does not currently include sexual orientation.

After considerable reflection, we have decided not to add sexual orientation to our legal non-discrimination clause. To make the change requested would mean that our decisions in this area would be measured by civil courts that may interpret this change through the lens of the broader societal milieu in which we live. This, in turn, might jeopardize our ability to make decisions that we believe necessary to support Church teaching. We wish to continue to speak to this issue in the Catholic context that is normative for this community.

Civil law does not constitute the exclusive basis for commitments made within this community. As mentioned above, we regard some of our deepest aspirations as flowing from our call to live the message of the gospels. We choose not to change our legal non-discrimination clause, but we call ourselves to act in accordance with what we regard as a higher standard — Christ's call to inclusiveness, coupled with the gospels' call to live chaste lives. In some senses both of these messages are counter-cultural. It is this dual call that is so deeply rooted in our religious tradition to which we commit ourselves.

We speak in a variety of settings — most notably, in our student life policies — to our affirmation of Church teaching with respect to sexual conduct. As a way of underscoring our equally strong commitment to the Church's teaching on the dignity inherent in every person as a child of God, we will publish the above statement on The Spirit of Inclusion at Notre Dame in all University publications.

Send comments

(back to contents)

d. ND's "academic freedom" statement

Academic freedom and associated responsibilities
Freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression are safeguarded by the University. The rights and obligations of academic freedom take diverse forms for the students, the faculty, and the administration; in general, however, they derive from the nature of academic life, and they are consistent with the objectives of the University as a community which pursues the highest scholarly standards, promotes intellectual and spiritual growth, maintains respect for individuals as persons and lives in the tradition of Christian belief.

Specific principles of academic freedom supported at the University include: freedom to teach and to learn according to one's obligation, vision and training; freedom to publish the results of one's study or research; and freedom to speak and to write on [public issues as a citizen.

Correlative obligations include: respectful allowance of the exercise of these freedoms by others; proper acknowledgment of contributions made by others to one's work; preservation of the confidentiality necessary in personal, academic and administrative deliberations; avoidance of using the University to advance personal opinion or commercial interest; and protection, in the course of one's conduct, utterances and work, of the basic aims of the University and its good name.

Send comments

(back to contents)

e. ND's "gender inclusive language" statement

"The University of Notre Dame shall use respectful and gender-inclusive language in its official proclamations and documents and calls upon members of the University community to adopt such usage in the conduct of their work and their social life within and outside the Notre Dame Community. "

Send comments  

(back to contents)

f. Sample "Departmental Gender Report" for outside reviews

I. Introduction: institutional background
The (*******) Department currently employs 29 tenured or tenure-track T&R faculty. Of these, 22 are men and 7 are women. For the 2000-2001 academic year, the department's regular faculty is distributed across rank as follows:

According to the university's most recently available statistics on the gender breakdown of regular research faculty in the College of Arts and Letters, the (*******) Department ranks as the fourth highest of the seventeen departments in terms of its percentage of male faculty.

This ranking is a marked example of a more pervasive problem in the institutional culture of Notre Dame. At its last accreditation visitation in 1994, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools noted the lack of proactive initiatives in recruiting and tenuring women and minorities. They made the following recommendation:

"The University should develop and implement a plan for filling the projected new 150 faculty positions that is sensitive and responsive to ethnicity and gender concerns. The absence of such a plan or an affirmative action office questions the seriousness of the University committee to increasing faculty diversity. Specific plans need to be developed to attract female and minority students."

This is indeed a challenge because so many university policies are not gender friendly: for example, there is no university policy on parental leaves, no adoption of a gay-lesbian nondiscrimination clause, no policy on spousal hiring, little institutional support for the hiring of non-academic spouses, medical insurance policies which exempt reproductive issues including contraception, and a student health service without a gynecologist on its permanent staff.

Now that we are midway through the accreditation cycle and no plan has been forthcoming, concern is growing. On 7 December 1999, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution demanding that the Provost publish its plan to attract female and minority faculty.

Within this institutional context, the (*******) Department has not taken a leadership role in gender affirmative action. Beyond perfunctory and sporadic reports of the gender breakdown of the Ph.D. pool in (*******) at the opening of each academic year, the Department has not engaged in any substantial discussion of what a culture of affirmative action might mean in terms of its hiring, growth, and daily governance.

Yet the neglect has had a negative impact on both student and faculty life in ways that are surprising given overall trends in the field, where women are closing the gender gap at a rapid rate in their representation in departmental faculties and graduate and undergraduate majors.

II. The impact of gender on faculty life

A. Governance

The impact of male predominance at the senior level means that the dominant political voice in the department is male. There has never been a female department chair; there has never been more than one woman on CAP during a given academic year (and only the CAP votes on hiring, renewal and tenure.) Until five years ago, there was no female representation on the Committee of the Fulls, the departmental body that makes recommendations on promotion to full and chaired professor. Although two women joined the Committee of the Fulls between 1995 and 2000, the same period saw five more men added to the same Committee. With 11 male members and 2 female members, the Committee is disproportionately male.

During the past five years, however, administrative labor has historically fallen, and continues to fall, most heavily on the shoulders of women, whether staff, professional specialists, or T&R faculty. Currently, the workload is excessive on all shoulders. We have already lost one administrative assistant in the department because she was expected to serve as an assistant to both the DGS and the chair, responsibilities which, she claimed, fall on two separate secretaries in other departments. The woman who has assumed her position frequently stays past 5.00 p.m. and sometimes even comes in on Saturdays to complete the work left unfinished from the week. The professional specialist is equally burdened. Administrative responsibilities initially stated to consume no more than three working days, have become a full time job, frequently requiring more than 40 hours a week. Often junior faculty of both sexes, but especially women, has been asked to serve as Director of Undergraduate Studies or Director of Graduate Studies before having been tenured. This practice has given rise to circumstances where those least able to say no are appointed to some of the most demanding departmental jobs. Because our department is administratively understaffed, women faculty have many times found themselves working far beyond what their job descriptions require.

Our last affirmative action officer was a woman, who, as an untenured member of the faculty, was ineligible for the CAP. She resigned in the spring of 1999 when representatives of the university affirmative action committee pressed her to justify departmental hiring trends in which she played no role. In the fall of 1999 the chair informed her that he considered her the "de facto affirmative action officer" since no one else had been appointed. In effect, she was not allowed to resign.

B. Hiring and retention of faculty
While there is plenty of goodwill on all sides, this goodwill somehow never gets translated into actual hires. At the end of the 1998-99 academic year, for example, male voices were raised at a departmental meeting about the need to hire a senior woman faculty member. Then, when we decided to offer a chaired position to a senior woman during the 1999-2000 academic year, everyone in the department was enthusiastic. The candidate, however, declined our offer.

Goodwill notwithstanding, the reality is that the gender imbalance in our department has gotten worse. We have a structural problem which needs to be addressed. Since 1991, we have hired 22 new faculty. Eight of these have been women, of whom five were hired between 1991-1995. All but one of these women were hired at the junior level. In contrast, ten of the fourteen men hired since 1991, were hired at the senior level. Eleven men and only three women were hired between 1996-2000.

The one woman who was appointed at the senior level during this period, moreover, was not initially to be hired at that rank. Only after a male colleague who was hired that same year refused to accept the job unless he was appointed with tenure was a similar offer extended to her. Even more disconcerting, when a female colleague about to come up for tenure at another university was hired at Notre Dame during the 1995-1996 academic year and asked to be appointed with tenure, she was told such an appointment was precluded by departmental policy.

(Note: Since 1991, there have been 22 new hires, 8 of whom have been women. Of the 8 women, 5 were hired between 1991-1995. Of the 14 men hired since 1991, 3 were hired between 1991-1995.)

Two faculty were denied tenure or renewal in 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. Both were women.

While Notre Dame has offered a number of "target of opportunity" and "impact player" hires — several of which have been given to our department — the process of pursuing this type of hire is obscure. We have never managed to hire a woman through this process, although we have hired several men. The one woman who was offered such a position turned us down. It is uncertain whether we could pursue the hiring of additional women through this avenue, because no clear process of putting forward candidates has been articulated by the administration.

We have also been unsuccessful in hiring women in open searches. In some searches women have declined our offers. In other searches, we were unable to turn up viable women candidates, perhaps because of the ways the positions have been defined or because of the nature of the fields. In some cases our inability to hire women may be because Notre Dame and other Catholic colleges and universities are sometimes perceived as being hostile to women intellectuals.

We have also experienced little success in promoting women. During the last two academic years, two of the department's three junior women came up for tenure and renewal, and both failed. This suggests that the department has been less than successful in mentoring junior faculty (of whatever gender). It is perhaps not coincidental that during the 1990s, when these women were hired, the department tried to improve its gender ratio by hiring superior women ABDs and both of the aforementioned women fell into these categories. Unless they receive excellent mentoring and protection along the way, it is exceedingly difficult for ABD's to complete their degrees and begin their careers simultaneously. Our department may well have failed our junior women in this regard. Our failure rate in retaining/tenuring these women suggests that we may not be devoting enough of the time and energy of our senior faculty to mentoring our junior women (and men) and to ensuring that their time is devoted to professional development rather than service work.

In order to meet these needs, there must be an open departmental discussion to establish a more formal basis for mentoring. In this way the fundamental difficulties of integration and retention/tenuring of junior women can be dealt with more effectively; such discussion would, of course, enhance the well being of all junior faculty in the department. Again, there is no lack of goodwill, and the informal conversation currently taking place between senior and junior faculty is fruitful. This matter was mentioned in a memo to the department during Fall '99, in which the chair, in response to faculty requests, raised such preliminary questions as what a mentor's responsibilities should be and how any potential conflicts of interest should be handled when mentors also serve on the CAP. However, these inquiries have yet to be followed up in a substantive way: the issue has not been discussed at any departmental meeting and there is no written departmental policy on mentoring. At the same time, we are still in need of a general guideline regarding the time commitment expected of mentors, more concrete ideas on the expectations mentees might hold regarding advice on professional development, feedback on research, their introduction to the culture of Notre Dame, and help with teaching.

As noted above, the issue of mentoring is of particular concern to the women of the department. More open, consistent mentoring practices would greatly benefit senior as well as junior faculty. Increased discussion of our junior faculty's research in more regular seminars or colloquia would also enrich the department's intellectual climate and might begin to address the problem of intellectual isolation articulated by some senior women faculty in the course of preparing this document.

Our record at hiring and retaining minority faculty also leaves much to be desired. Since 1992, three minority women have been hired; we have not managed to retain one of them. While our record in hiring three minority women might seem laudable, it should be noted that two of these women were hired to fill our position in African-American (*******), where retention has been a long-standing problem. The first left Notre Dame after complaining about campus racism in the Journal of Women's (*******). The second stayed for only one year, after which another university recruited her, which boasted a strong Afro-American (*******) program and a more racially diverse (*******) department. The third, who was denied tenure two years ago, was discussed above. Since 1992, one other minority woman was offered employment in the (*******) department (again for the African-American position); she declined our offer. In the same period, only one additional minority woman has been invited to campus for interview (in 1993).
Some more hopeful developments have occurred, however. The department has recently extended a pre-doctoral fellowship to one minority woman who is completing her degree in (*******) at Yale. She is studying African-American religious (*******), an area in which we hope eventually to hire.

In addition, the university is currently offering several other pre-doctoral fellowships on a competitive basis to other minority students, both men and women. Some of these have been offered in (*******). Last year, for example, one was offered to a male who ultimately went to Dartmouth instead of Notre Dame. There is widespread hope, however, that this strategy will help us increase our minority representation. Although here, too, we have concerns about how, and if, these pre-doctoral fellows will be introduced, much less integrated, into our department.

III. The impact of gender on student life

A. Graduate students

Our graduate program also is marked by gender imbalance. Of the 54 students presently studying for the Ph.D., 18 are women and 36 are men. Efforts to recruit outstanding women students, moreover, have been hindered by the fact that very few apply to study American religious (*******), the area to which we direct the greatest amount of departmental resources at the graduate level. For example, 16 candidates (14 men and 2 women) applied to study with _________ for fall 1999; for fall 2000 the figures were 6 men and 3 women. We have, however, been more successful in recruiting women to study American Catholic (*******). Until the 2000-2001 academic year, the great majority of our graduate students in this field have been women despite the fact that the applicant pool is about equally divided between men and women. For the 2000-2001 class, 2 men and 1 woman applied to study American Catholic (*******). Of these, two were seriously considered: 1 woman and 1 man. Our American Catholic (*******), however, decided that they could train no more than one candidate, and they selected the male applicant for that slot.

The minuscule number of women we do accept into our graduate program, and the fact that many of them do not study American religious (*******), have negatively affected their experiences at graduate school.

Conversation with our female graduate students suggests that many feel marginalized in, and alienated from, the department. Because the numbers of women graduate students in our department are small, statistical analysis would be difficult to produce. However, two former Directors of Graduate Studies report being told by female graduate students that their intelligence had been denigrated by other graduate students, that they have learned to keep their mouths shut in class, or that the subjects of their research are marginal or unimportant. Male (and maybe female) graduate students warned women not to engage in feminist or theoretical research, lest their interests harm them in the profession and prevent them from getting jobs. In addition, some women graduate students report that certain male faculty members seem unenthusiastic about working with them, or ignore their contributions in class. While certain "top" women students are respected for their intellectual accomplishments and have won departmental prizes, those with less stellar accomplishments tend to be seen as far less talented than male peers whose abilities are similar to their own.

This type of atmosphere can have subtly devastating effects on our women graduate students. Low expectations among faculty can lead to disappointing performance; ridicule or disrespect among male graduate students can lead female graduate students to decide that a low profile is their best strategy. Such incidents are regularly reported. While some women graduate students thrive and deny encountering such an atmosphere, others report being deeply harmed. Gifted students have become convinced they are too stupid, untalented, or otherwise unsuited to succeed in an academic career. Several of our talented females have chosen (or are considering) not to seek jobs in the academy.

B. Undergraduate students
Our department has also failed in recruiting female undergraduate students to the major. The most recent statistics, from 1998-1999, show that of 192 majors, 59 percent were male, and 41 percent female. In the college as a whole, the gender split is nearly equal: 50.02 percent of the undergraduates in the College of Arts and Letters are male; 49.98 percent are female. We cannot explain precisely why this gender disparity exists, in part because we have never asked the students. In discussions of undergraduate affairs, there are few official channels between students and the department. Undergraduates are even less represented in departmental governance than graduate students. There was no undergraduate voice in the relevant section of this review; indeed, there is no undergraduate representative on the Undergraduate Committee. (The only departmental committee with undergraduate representation is the Honesty Committee, and this is mandated by the University.)

In discussions of undergraduate affairs there are few points of contact between the students and the department. The only institutional venue for students to discuss the major is through the office of the Director of Undergraduate Studies. The office is open every day. The problem, however, is that a professional specialist, not a regular member of the faculty, sees the overwhelming majority of undergraduate students. The remainder fall to the DUS, an untenured member of the faculty, who is therefore also equally powerless to effect meaningful change.

Admittedly, some informal efforts have been made to give majors a voice in their education. Between 1993 and 1995, for example, the DUS held annual "forums" for undergraduates to meet and discuss the major. The forums, for example, were instrumental in instituting a new student advising system. At another forum, majors proposed, and then began publishing, a bi-monthly newspaper which was at the time intended to provide yet another means for undergraduates to discuss their perceptions of the major. The paper now appears twice a year, but has assumed a very different form. The students who have written for it during the past two years have made it an avenue for discussing their research, international study experiences and exploring postgraduate career paths. Although these are laudable contributions to their intellectual life, the fact remains that the number of informal channels for undergraduates to communicate their perceptions of the major has decreased.

Another concern is that many of our very best female students do not appear to take advantage of departmental efforts to introduce our best majors to more challenging classroom opportunities. For example, during the 1999-2000 academic year, the department began offering a methods seminar for our most academically talented junior majors. 17 students (i.e. all those with the necessary grade point average) were originally invited to enroll: 11 women and 6 men. However, even after additional students had been selected for invitation, only 4 women actually enrolled; the 12 other students were men.

The experience of faculty also indicates that our very best women majors have not seized opportunities for post-graduate fellowships, including Rhodes and Fulbright awards, in the same numbers as their male counterparts. Conversations with faculty members reveal that it is invariably our male majors who apply for those awards. Two women who teach European (*******), for example, report that they have helped students with 14 Fulbright applications during the past five years. None has been a woman. In fact, the 6 Fulbrights awarded to our department have been awarded almost exclusively to men (5 men and 1 woman).

These statistics give rise to a series of questions which need to be addressed and answered. Is there enough diversity in the curriculum to make it attractive to women? Do we need more mentorship of our talented women majors to encourage them to seek national fellowships such as Fulbrights and Rhodes? Is our advising effective in cultivating the development of our female majors? How does our lack of women faculty affect women's perception of (*******) as a major?

IV. Recommendations
1) that the department elect an affirmative action committee composed of tenured and untenured faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates whose mandate would be to address the issues raised herein and report to the department biannually over the next three years.

2) that all search committees prepare and submit affirmative action reports including both affirmative action statistics and the strategies they adopted to locate and recruit women and minority applicants.

3) that each year, the graduate admissions committee prepare a report to the department outlining its efforts to recruit women graduate students.

4) that an elected committee re-evaluate departmental governance and its
impact on gender relations by comparing its current procedures to other departments in the College of Arts and Letters and to peer (*******) departments which are most successful in recruiting and retaining women and minorities. Based on this comparative information, the committee should make recommendations for productive changes in departmental governance.

5) that only tenured faculty hold positions of DUS, DGS, and Affirmative Action Officer.

6) that the department collect more information on the gender imbalance in the undergraduate majors and holds an open forum with the undergraduates about the form and content of the major.

7) that the Graduate Students elect an affirmative action committee and that this committee reports biannually to the DGS regarding the gender climate in the graduate program.

8) that the department follow some of its counterparts in the College by adopting its own non-discrimination clause against gays and lesbians, and that this policy be noted on our website.

9) that administrative understaffing be addressed and rectified.

Send comments

(back to contents)

g. ND's student population
Released: February 22, 2001
From: Dennis Brown, Public Relations, ND

Students choose to attend Notre Dame for many reasons, but the University's strong academic reputation ranks as by far the most important factor, according to an annual survey of college freshmen conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.

Some 95 percent of Notre Dame's first-year students cited academic reputation as a very important factor in their college decision-making process, about 40 percentage points higher than students nationwide.

Notre Dame students also are right where they want to be, with 85 percent saying the University was their first choice, compared with 71 percent elsewhere.

The statistics are consistent with Notre Dame's place among the most selective universities in the nation, joining Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Dartmouth, Brown, MIT and Rice as the only schools that admit fewer than half of their freshman applicants and enroll more than half of those who are admitted.

The annual ACE/UCLA survey is designed to profile the political and social views of the nation's college freshmen. This year's survey is based on the responses of 269,413 students at 434 of the nation's four-year institutions.

A worrisome trend in this year's survey - a lack of interest in politics among first-year students nationwide - was far less evident at Notre Dame.

"Keeping up with politics" is essential or very important to 47 percent of the 2000 freshman class at Notre Dame -19 points higher than the national average of 28 percent. The overall response is the lowest level in the survey's 35 years and is especially surprising because the percentages historically have risen in election years.

Notre Dame students also were more likely than their peers to have discussed politics within the past year, some 27 percent responding affirmatively, compared with 16 percent nationwide.

Their political engagement is likely one reason why Notre Dame freshmen report greater interest than their peers in civic leadership and are more optimistic about their ability to effect change. Some 46 percent at Notre Dame believe it is important to become a community leader, 15 percentage points above the national average, and 85 percent, compared with 73 percent nationally, believe the efforts of individuals can make a difference. Among other noteworthy observations drawn from the survey:

In the 2000 political campaigns, conservative candidates were more likely to draw the votes of Notre Dame freshmen. Some 35 percent label themselves politically conservative and 21 percent are liberal, compared with 20 percent and 28 percent nationally. The largest political group is comprised of those who describe themselves as middle of the road - 44 percent at Notre Dame and 55 percent nationwide.

By significant margins over their peers, Notre Dame freshmen oppose both abortion (68 percent to 46 percent) and the death penalty (55 percent to 31 percent).

Some 96 percent of the University's freshmen report they performed volunteer work in the past year, compared with 81 percent of students nationally, and 61 percent plan tocontinue with community service, as compared to some 24 percent nationally. (Notre Dame freshmen are likely underestimating their future volunteer efforts; the University's Center for Social Concerns reports that 80 percent of Notre Dame students actually engage in volunteer projects during their four years on campus.)

Some 97 percent of Notre Dame's freshmen report they attended a religious service in the past year and 44 percent regularly discuss religious issues, compared with 83 percent and 30 percent overall.

About 64 percent of the first-year students at Notre Dame say it is essential or very important to be well-off financially, 9 percent less than the national average.

Notre Dame's freshmen are opposed to casual sex, with 79 percent rejecting the statement "if two people really like each other, it's all right for them to have sex even if they've known each other for a very short time." About 58 percent nationwide are similarly opposed.

Developing a meaningful philosophy of life is essential to 62 percent of Notre Dame freshmen, 20 percentage points higher than the national average.

Notre Dame students have shown far more interest in their academic preparation than peers nationwide. About 76 percent of the University's freshmen spent six hours or more per week on their high school homework, compared with just 36 percent nationally.

The University's first-year students smoke far less than the average and drink alcoholic beverages at a slightly lower rate. Some 10 percent of college freshmen have smoked, compared with 2 percent at Notre Dame. Nationwide, 54 percent of students had consumed wine or liquor and 48 percent drank beer, compared with 49 percent and 46 percent for Notre Dame freshmen.

About 34 percent of students on other campuses support the legalization of marijuana, compared with 22 percent at Notre Dame.

Statistics on graduating seniors - 2001
About 94 percent of the 1,908 students who enrolled at Notre Dame in the fall of 1997 will receive a diploma Sunday (May 20) - a graduation rate exceeded only by Harvard and Princeton.

Some 33 percent of this year's seniors spent one or two semesters studying abroad, the highest such percentage for any major American research university.

Almost 80 percent of the graduates participated in volunteer and service-learning programs in both the greater South Bend area as well as nationwide.

Some 10 percent of this year's seniors - about 180 - will continue in volunteer service to society, engaging in a year or more of work in programs such as the Peace Corps, Teach for America, the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and Notre Dame's own Alliance for Catholic Education and Holy Cross Associates.

All 50 of the United States are represented in the senior class, as are some 80 nations worldwide among both the seniors and advanced degree candidates, making Notre Dame one of the world's most geographically diverse universities.

Send comments

(back to contents)

h. ND employees with disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines "disability" as an impairment that "substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." Although some disabilities, such as inability to walk, missing or impaired limbs or severely impaired vision, are easy to observe, many disabilities are not. Some examples of "hidden" disabilities are learning disabilities, mental illness, epilepsy, cancer, arthritis, mental retardation, traumatic brain injury, AIDS and asthma. Many people do not believe that hidden disabilities are bona fide disabilities needing accommodations.

Hidden disabilities can result in functional limitations which substantially limit one or more of the major life activities, just like those which are visible. Accommodating hidden disabilities can keep valued employees on the job and open doors for new employees.

The ADA requires that reasonable accommodation be provided, if necessary, for all impairments that meet the definition of "disability," whether hidden or visible. Reasonable accommodations must be determined on a case-by-case basis to ensure effective accommodations which will meet the needs of the employee and the employer. Accommodations can range from making existing facilities accessible for wheelchair users to job restructuring, acquiring or modifying equipment, developing flexible work schedules or modifying task protocols.

Accommodating qualified employees with disabilities sets up a win-win situation: employers gain a qualified, stable, diverse workforce; people with disabilities get jobs; and society saves money that previously funded public benefits and services for people with disabilities.

Governor's Planning Council for People with Disabilities

143 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-7770 (Voice)
(317) 232-7771 (TTY)
(317) 233-3712 (FAX)

Job Accommodation Network (JAN)
JAN is a toll-free information and referral service on job accommodations for people with disabilities; on the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and on resources for technical assistance, funding, education, and services related to the employment of people with disabilities. In addition, JAN analyzes trends and statistical data related to the technical assistance it provides. JAN can be accessed by phone at 1-800-526-7234 or 1-800-ADA-WORK (1-800-232-9675) or by Internet
(JAN) http//www.jan.wvu.edu/english/homeus.htm). Staff contact:Paul Hippolitus (hippolitus-paul@dol.gov).

Send comments

(back to contents)

i. Administrative assistants at Notre Dame
Here's a sample job description and salary information (probably at the low end of the scale) for administrative assistants in the College of Arts and Letters -- just so we can know who we are working with and what they are getting paid, $21,120 - 28, 416 a year.


JOB TITLE: Administrative Assistant


SALARY: $2,010 - $2,368 per month

POSTING PERIOD: 4/3/01 TO 4/22/01

Hours: 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year

JOB DUTIES: Perform a wide variety of administrative activities for the Department Chair, Faculty, and Graduate Teaching Assistants. Process manuscripts, graphics, tables, statistical equations, tests, various correspondence, and research documents for the department. Set up merge programs to send letters to several persons or institutions, such as to prospective students, to faculty applicants, letters of recommendations for students, etc. Prepare and maintain strict confidentiality of examinations for undergraduate and graduate courses. Some exams require use of ExamMaster program. Grade student exams using department's optical scanner. Assist with supervision of student assistants; coordinate work schedules, assign duties, oversee work and process time cards. Coordinate and oversee preparation of course descriptions for undergraduate students each semester. Process grants in a timely and proper format. Create, maintain and oversee databases for numerous special projects such as graduate student and faculty applications, undergraduate students, etc. Design and prepare departmental brochures. Answer telephones, send departmental e-mail, faxes, sort mail and perform all other office duties to ensure a professional office operation.

QUALIFICATIONS: High school diploma or equivalent with some college level course work. At least three to five years experience in office/clerical. Must be proficient in a variety of software programs with the ability to learn new programs as needed. Must have excellent organizational skills to adapt to handling multiple projects at once. Must have excellent communication skills, interpersonal skills and project a positive, professional image.

TO APPLY: Submit a Promotion/Transfer Application

to __________ by _____________

Notre Dame is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Send comments

(back to contents)

j. Sex Discrimination Suits and the Frese Appeal
Lawsuits are frequently expensive, lengthy, painful, and uncertain. In most cases, it is wise to exhaust all other possibilities before involving yourself in the legal process. In fact, our hope is that "Best Practices" will help you avoid the last resort of a lawsuit. They require time, money, effort, and they can become quite overwhelming in a person's life. In this section, I've tried to put together a primer about sex discrimination suits; the law can be very complex and always depends on particular circumstances so this explanation in no way should be seen as legal advice or as an exhaustive discussion of discrimination law.

Basic principles
The law prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Discrimination means treating people differently in hiring, and in the terms and conditions of employment. In order to bring a sex discrimination suit against an employer, for example, you have to show not only that you were treated unfairly but that you were treated unfairly because of sex, because you are a woman. This is frequently shown by demonstrating that a "similarly situated" man received benefits that you did not. For example, a man with the same number of years of service and a similar publications, teaching, and service record as you was promoted to full professor and you were not. Or that man is paid more than you are. Remember, being treated badly is not enough; employers can be unfair as long as they're unfair to everyone. You have to show that you are treated differently because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or you have no legal basis for a lawsuit.

Campus resources
If you think you are or have been discriminated against, my advice is to talk to your superior - chair or dean -- first, as long as you are comfortable doing that. For example, you might say to your chair, "Arnold, you may not be aware, but your last ten appointments to the X committee were all men." Or, "Jack, you might not have noticed, but my salary seems to have lagged behind that of others at my rank in the department. I thought I'd call it to your attention before you do the budget this year so that you can fix it." The problem might get resolved easily. Discrimination rears its ugly head in subtle as well as obvious ways, and because Notre Dame has been male dominated for so long, it can occur inadvertently. In other words, they just don't notice or know better. So try and talk it out first. Failing that the new Office of Institutional Equity is specifically charged with hearing your complaint and helping you resolve it (we've listed other resources under "Picking Your Battles").

Sex discrimination suits
The University has been sued many times, according to campus talk, but in nearly all cases, it has settled before trial. The details of the settlements are difficult to discover because often the settlement includes an agreement not to discuss the details. In only one case I know of, a person received tenure and was reinstated (the Frese case discussed below). In some cases (I think), people have technically received tenure but have gone elsewhere. Monetary settlements are the most common.

To our knowledge, the first sex discrimination suits were filed against the University in the late 70s. At that time, only two women, Elizabeth Fiorenza and Josephine Ford, had tenure and both sued because they could not get promoted. Dolores Frese, who had been denied tenure in the English Department, joined them in suing the University for discrimination based on sex. The University moved to separate the suits, since tenure was not at issue in the Fiorenza and Ford cases, and the cases proceeded separately. Subsequently, the Frese suit became a class action, which other women faculty were invited to join.

After at least three years of extensive discovery (depositions, examining files, getting documents), during which Judge Sharp ordered that the University had to turn over confidential files and the EEOC joined the Frese suit, the women prevailed and all three suits were settled. Fiorenza and Ford were promoted to full professor as part of the settlement agreements. Frese was granted tenure, reinstatement in the English Department, and legal fees; a special appeals process for women who are denied tenure was established as part of the settlement and still exists (commonly called the "Frese appeal"). The University requested but did not get a gag order. The Frese suit became something of a "cause celebre," generating angry letters and an article in the National Catholic Reporter.

Although many other sex discrimination suits are rumored to have been filed, only three have any public records: suits of Beth B. Kern, Sonia Goltz, and Eileen Bender (copies of the opinions are available in WATCH archives), and these opinions, while interesting, are not about the outcome but on motions filed before trial, such as requests to produce certain kinds of documents. They are, nonetheless, instructive as to the complicated tactics and roadblocks that one can encounter in a discrimination suit.

Of particular interest is the judge's comment in a 1998 opinion denying summary judgment (dismissal before trial) to the University in the Kern and Goltz suits (the motion for summary judgment referred to both suits). The judged rued the massive file that had accrued (18 inches in depth) and commented that "[i]t is obvious that someone on one side of this case or another, perhaps at an early stage, adopted what can only generously be described as a scorched earth approach to this litigation." This kind of massive and very expensive pretrial discovery is sometimes a tactic of defendant companies in discrimination cases who have much more money to spend on legal services than the plaintiffs who have sued. Sometimes plaintiffs run out of money and give up or accept low settlement offers.

Other discrimination suits
Three other discrimination suits have public records: those of Joseph R. Moore, an assistant football coach (age discrimination); Vincent Eaton, a dining hall cook (race discrimination); and Oscar Brookins, an economics professor (race discrimination). Eaton's case was dismissed on summary judgment because the University was able to put forth "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, supported by evidence, for its decisions not to promote" him. The record available in the Brookins case is about disclosing documents and the University was ordered to disclose because "no academic privilege exists which would protect from disclosure the names and identifying information of the reviewers of academic qualifications for tenure...."

The Moore case in 1998, which went to a jury trial and Moore won, earned the University some embarrassing adverse publicity. Although Moore was denied reinstatement, he received liquidated damages, front pay, back pay, legal fees, and reimbursement of expenses; the University received a damaging blow to its reputation for fairness. The Moore case may well act as a powerful incentive to the University to settle discrimination cases before they become very public.

Send comments

(back to contents)

k. Robert's Rules of Order
If you're going to serve on a university committee or council - that is, a "deliberative body" that operates by Robert's Rules of Order - here is some basic information that will help you be more effective in being heard and better able to affect the course of decisions-making. The Faculty Senate, the College Council and the Academic Council are a few of these, but the principles, in principle, are applicable to departmental CAP proceedings and other committees you might be on. You will find that those committee members who know Robert's Rules will use them effectively to press their wishes by amending motions, closing debate on a motion, etc.

WATCH has held two workshops, led by Jean Porter, to inform our membership about how parliamentary procedures proceed. These brief notes are far from complete but will give you an idea of the principles, and the "moves".

First of all, the Robert of Robert's Rules of Order was a union general during the Civil War. He wrote a book, not a legal document, to propose rules whereby a deliberative body (an assembly) could function well and democratically - that is, act, definitely, on behalf of its constituents. A deliberative body is one who makes decisions based on debate, and then formal votes. Robert's Rules can be used anywhere that a representative body is empowered by their constituents to act on their behalf. They are of course subject to the by-laws of the particular organization.

First a useful definition. A deliberative body: 1. exists to make decisions: it is legislative, not executive or investigative; 2. it takes actions by vote, not by consensus; 3.it functions in a formal or structured way (according to a set of rules, like Robert's); 4. it is not a format for open-ended discussion, brainstorming, etc.

The purpose of Robert's Rules of Order is to guarantee a debate that is inclusive of all members' voices (based on the moral principle that everyone should be heard) and to guarantee a vote that is fair. There are rules for closing or limiting debate. Usually a simple majority is all that is required to pass most motions. Those motions which require more than a majority are those which have the effect of cutting off debate — , eg, "to call the question" — or to reverse a prior action of the body — eg, to rescind something previously passed.

Another underlying principle is the neutrality of the chairperson, who normally doesn't participate in the debate nor show his/her particular position on the subject. The Chair can vote, however, and in a close election might need to do so to break a tie.

Robert's Rules are also designed to make sure the debate is orderly, by laying our rules for the precedence of motions, and, to make sure that any motion passed is definitive. It sets out quorum requirements and voting requirements. It also stipulates that the acts of the assembly can only be overruled by the assembly itself.

A motion (to act) must be clear. Ideally it is in writing, and distributed to the members in enough time to be studied before debate.

A motion can be modified through an amendment before a vote.

Here are a few common mistakes and things to watch out for:

1. The chair should be completely impartial and should never engage in debate, although s/he may answer factual and procedural questions when asked.

2. The by-laws of an organization have the ultimate authority: a motion which contradicts the bylaws of the organization should not even be debated, much less passed; it should be ruled out of order as soon as proposed.

3. The chair is in charge. A parliamentarian acts in an advisory capacity only. However a procedural ruling by the chairperson can be appealed, but this is straight motion which is debatable and is decided by vote. The chair cannot halt debate on his/her own initiative, although s/he can (and should) enforce rules of debate, which do impose some limits.

4. The motion to table is meant to halt consideration of a motion in view of some emergency, such as "I move to table the motion in view of the fact that the hall is on fire." The motion to table does not require debate and requires a simple majority to pass. However, it should not be used as a way to dispose of an awkward motion without taking a vote. There is a way to do this, namely, by making a motion to postpone indefinitely, but this motion itself is debatable, which the motion to table is not.

5. The other way to end debate is the motion to "call the question". This motion itself must be voted on and calls for a 2/3rd majority. It is not appropriate to close debate as soon as someone shouts out, "Question!"

Send comments

(back to contents)

l. Books

on Notre Dame
The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (The Chicago Series on Sexuality, History and Society), Mark Jordan

The Challenge and Promise of a Catholic University, Theodore M. Hesburgh

The Book of Kills: A Mystery Set at the University of Notre Dame, by Ralph M. McInerny

Trees, Shrubs, and Vines on the University of Notre Dame Campus, Barbara J. Hellenthal, Thomas J. Schlereth, Robert P. McIntosh

Notre Dame, the Official Campus Guide, Damaine Vonada

Domers: A Year at Notre Dame, by Kevin Coyne

Chronicles of Notre Dame Du Lac, by Edward Sorin, James T. Connelly (Editor)

The Coach's Wife, Terry Phelps

general faculty issues
Manifesto of a Tenured Radical Academic Keywords: A Devil's Dictionary for Higher Education, Cary Nelson

Publish and Perish: Three Tales of Tenure and Terror, James Hynes

Ghosts in the Classroom: Stories of Adjunct Faculty and the Price We All Pay, editor, Michael Dubson

An Anthology of Snakebites: On Women, Love and Philosophy, Seven Bridges Press, Gretchen J. Reydams-Schils

nuns, priests, etc.
Sisters in Arms: Catholic Nuns Through Two Millenniums, Jo Ann Kay McNamara

The Changing Face of the Priesthood : A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul, B. Cozzens

Send comments

(back to contents)

m. Useful websites for women faculty

(Click on the blue title to open the site in a new window.)

Activist Groups, Associations and Organizations
The American Association of University Women is a national organization that promotes education and equity for all women and girls. The commitment to these issues is reflected by the AAUW public policy program.

Emily's list was founded in 1985 to create a grassroots network of donors that would give women the credibility they needed to win elections.

Feminist.com is a grassroots, interactive community by, for and about women. It aims to facilitate information-sharing among women and encourage mobilization around political issues.

The Feminist Majority Foundation's mission is to create innovative, cutting-edge research, educational programs, and strategies to further women's equality and empowerment; to reduce violence toward women, to increase the health and economic well-being of women, and to eliminate discrimination of all kinds.

The Independent Women's Forum provides a voice for American women who believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. The National Advisory Board is chaired by Christina Hoff Sommers, and includes as members Elaine Chao and Linda Chavez.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) is a public policy research organization dedicated to informing and stimulating the debate on public policy issues of critical importance to women and their families.

Minnesota Women's Press, Inc., is a communications business whose mission it is to promote communication by, about and among women in ways that create community and are grounded in a transforming feminist worldview.

The Ms. Foundation for Women, a national, multi-issue, public women's fund, supports the efforts of women and girls to govern their own lives and influence the world around them, funds and assists women's self-help organizing efforts, and pursues changes in public consciousness, law, philanthropy, and social policy. The foundation directs resources to break down barriers based on race, class, age, disability, sexual orientation and culture.

National Association for Women in Education is the first professional association for women working in higher education. It was founded in 1916 as the National Association of Deans of Women (NADW).

The National Organization for Women is the largest women's rights organization in the United States, with a membership of over 500,000 contributing women and men in more than 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Women's History Project "History looks different when the contributions of women are included." -

National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) supports and promotes feminist/womanist teaching, learning, research, and professional and community service at the pre-K through post-secondary levels and serves as a locus of information about the inter-disciplinary field of Women's Studies for those outside the profession.

V-Day is a global movement to end violence against girls and women. To date, Eve Ensler's Obie Award-winning play, "The Vagina Monologues," has been the centerpiece of these events. In order to translate its mission into action, V-Day established the V-Day Fund in 1998.

Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, an independent, non-profit organization "dedicated to ensuring that all women have access to appropriate and freely chosen reproductive health services".

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Its mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary.

The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973. It is the largest pro-life organization in the United States.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence.

Higher Education
Campus climate: Pointers for choosing a women-friendly college, by Mary Miller

Chronicle of Higher Education

Women in Higher Education, a monthly source of news and views to provide an overview of issues affecting women on campus.

Information Technology
The Center for Women and Information Technology, established at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) in July, 1998, seeks to address and rectify women's under-representation in IT and to enhance our understanding of the relationship between gender and IT.

The Stanford Learning Lab is a collaborative venture to improve student learning and to promote creativity in education through the introduction of pedagogically informed learning technology.

Women's Studies
The University of Maryland women's studies database, begun in September 1992, serves those people interested in the women's studies profession and in general women's issues.

The Women's Studies Section Links, developed and maintained by the WSS Collection Development Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries provides access to web sites in a variety of academic disciplines as they relate to women and gender.

Women's Studies/Women's Issues Resource Sites is a selective, alphabetical listing of web sites containing resources and information about women's studies/women's issues, with an emphasis on sites of particular use to an academic women's studies program. If you're looking for sites on a specific women-focused topic, you can select from a variety of sub-topics.

Women Faculty Organizations at Other Universities
Women Faculty and Staff Issues at the University of Wisconsin provides links to offices and committees that work collaboratively to improve policies, programs, benefits and work conditions for women and their families.

The Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Women at the University of Illinois serves as an advisory committee to the Chancellor on campus policies, procedures and issues as they affect the status of women faculty, staff and students. Examples of policies and issues are included.

The Women Faculty Resource Network is a grass roots effort of women faculty on the University of Oregon Campus who are interested in strengthening and supporting the scholarly activities of women faculty on this campus.

The Organization of Women Faculty at Northwestern University, founded in 1981, has been improving the working conditions for women faculty at Northwestern for 15 years. The Organization was established in recognition of the fact that female members of the Northwestern University faculty share certain interests that need to be considered in the making of university policy and that are not always given sufficient recognition by the University.

Association for Women Faculty at the University of Arizona has as its goal to achieve a campus climate which fosters the careers of women faculty and academic professionals.

Association of Women Faculty at Washington University has as its purpose to promote professional and social interactions among women faculty at Washington University in order to discover, support, and pursue mutual goals.

Washington State University for Faculty Women provides a means for faculty women to become acquainted with each other, to share mutual interests, activities, and concerns, particularly as they relate to academic responsibilities of teaching, research, and service at WSU.

The University of Texas Faculty Women's Organization was founded in 1982. Membership is open to all women faculty, including those not on the tenure track. The purpose of the organization is to provide a support network for women in the campus community, to sponsor programs concerned with the professional development of women faculty, and to disseminate information about University practice and policy vital to our interests.

Women Faculty and Professional Association at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville was founded in 1984 by a small group of women faculty and administrators who recognized the need for establishing an organization to promote the advancement of women's concerns at the University of Virginia. Since that time, WFPA has created a groundwork for UVA women to explore the professional dimension of employment in higher education

Send comments

(back to contents)

n. Letter rejecting an ND job offer

Dear Christopher Hamlin,

Apologies for not responding sooner to your gracious invitation for me to become a candidate for the Andrew V. Tackes chair in American history.

As I indicated last year, this position and Notre Dame would in most ways be very attractive to me, but the institution's policies on domestic partner benefits and on gay rights generally would impose both a high personal cost for me and a weighty political burden.

You're free to share that response on my part as widely as you choose. I regret that I cannot respond otherwise.


Michael Sherry


Send comments

(back to contents)






back to contents







back to contents







back to contents























8/30/02 12:18 AM
2007 University of Notre Dame