download this issue in pdf format - Academic Matters

ACADEMIC MATTERS FFeebbrruuaarryy//fféévvrriieerr 22000077 3

T H I S M AT T E R S ]

AAcademics have never been justprofessionals in their field ofexpertise. They are also men and

women of a particular generation, ethnic-ity, race, sexual orientation, and culture.These realities also shape—to varyingdegrees—the university world.

This current issue reflects how thisworld is unfolding. It features the multiplevoices of academics who have researchedand experienced the struggle for equity oncampus.

The first six articles consider thedynamics of gender in academe, with theUniversity of Windsor’s Janice Drakichand York University’s Penni Stewart lead-ing off with an analysis of the demograph-ic trend toward women graduates and itsfuture implications. Their survey showsthat women have not broken throughacademia’s ivy ceiling at the rate theirnumbers in the undergraduate and gradu-ate ranks—and 40 years of feminist activ-ity on campuses—should produce. Theauthors worry that with the apparentdiminution in employment equity com-mitment on campuses, the current waveof hiring will not realize its potential ofcreating a professoriate (and universityadministration) that reflects women’s uni-versity participation.

Sandra Acker from the University ofToronto explores the effect of gender onwomen’s ability to reach the highest levelof university administration. Her survey ofwomen academic administrators revealsconsiderable challenges for women butconsiderable rewards as well—for those

who receive the kind of support thatallows them to flourish.

Michelle Webber from BrockUniversity poses the thorny question ofthe impact of the growth in contingentfaculty hiring on women. She describesthe effects of the gendering of contingentfemale faculty, including self-censorshipprompted by job insecurity, that leadsthem to “play it safe” in the classroomabout such issues as feminism.

Jo-Anne Dillabough, from theUniversity of British Columbia, asks howand when the traditional models of par-enting and working will change to accom-modate the needs of working parents nowthat the stereotypical “unencumbered”male scholar is a vanishing species.

Michael Kaufman, an extensively pub-lished writer on gender relations, andQueen’s University’s Jason Laker look atgender from the masculine side, sensitive-ly describing the complex gender terrainthat young men are navigating. Someyouths are less successful than others, theysay, displaying a wide range of controlling,sexist behaviour. The authors outline waysfaculty can help young men with theirstruggle to learn modern gender relations.

This issue then turns its attention tothe realities faced by visible minority fac-ulty and the academic world they have

been shaped by and have also shaped.George Elliott Clarke, who has won theGovernor-General’s literary award forpoetry, testifies to his experience as a fac-ulty member and seventh-generationCanadian of African-American andMi’maq heritage. He argues that diversify-ing the faculty will make the “humanitieslook more like humanity.” Taiaiake Alfredbears witness to the realities faced by hisfellow Aboriginal faculty members andurges them, as others have done before, toembrace the struggles of their nations asmembers of the university community.Frances Henry and Carol Tator describehow universities continue to discriminatein hiring and curriculum, both overtlyand, more subtly, through a systemic biasagainst anything that does not conform toa Eurocentric model.

Our book review section features stim-ulating contributions from faculty workingin the area, including Jeffrey Reitz, LindaBurnett, Roxanne Ng, and Glen Jones.

Humour columnist Steven Penfoldprovides us with a wry look at the chal-lenges of combining a faculty job with par-enting young children, as he affectionate-ly recounts his own experiences as an aca-demic father.

Academic Matters editor Mark Rosenfeldcloses out the issue with his look at theemotional and intellectual challenges ofdiscussing and debating issues of such sensi-tivity as gender and race, emphasizing thatempathy and understanding are needed onall sides if equity initiatives are to be accept-ed—and enduring.

Striving for equity: Voices from academe

Empathy and understandingare needed on all sides

AAMM

How far have we come? Where are we going?

4 FFeebbrruuaarryy//fféévvrriieerr 22000077 ACADEMIC MATTERS

L E S V R A I E S A F FA I R E S ]

LLes universitaires ne sont jamaisseulement des professionnels dansleur domaine d’expertise. Ce sont

aussi des hommes et des femmes d’unegénération, d’une ethnicité, d’une race,d’une orientation sexuelle et d’une cultureen particulier. Ces réalités forment aussi, àdivers degrés, le milieu universitaire.

Le présent numéro reflète la situationdans ce milieu. Il diffuse les multiples voixdes universitaires qui ont fait des recherch-es sur les efforts visant à obtenir l’équité surle campus et qui en ont l’expérience.

Les six premiers articles considèrent ladynamique de la problématique homme-femme, en commençant par JaniceDrakich de l’Université de Windsor etPenni Stewart de l’Université York quiont analysé la tendance démographiquechez les diplômées et les répercussions àvenir. L’enquête révèle que les femmesn’ont pas percé les hautes sphères dumilieu universitaire au taux que devraitcorrespondre au nombre d’étudiantes depremier cycle et de diplômées, mêmeaprès plus de 40 ans d’activités féministessur les campus. Voici une préoccupationdes auteures : compte tenu de l’engage-ment envers l’équité en matière d’emploiapparemment à la baisse sur les campus, lavague actuelle d’embauche, malgré sonpotentiel, ne réussira pas à établir un corpsprofessoral (et une administration univer-sitaire) qui reflète la participation desfemmes au milieu universitaire.

Sandra Acker de l’Université deToronto examine les répercussions de laproblématique homme-femme sur la capac-ité des femmes d’atteindre les plus hautsniveaux de l’administration universitaire.Son enquête auprès des administratricesuniversitaires révèle les défis considérables

que doivent relever les femmes, mais aussiles expériences très enrichissantes pourcelles qui obtiennent le genre de soutienqui leur permet de s’épanouir.

Michelle Webber de l’UniversitéBrock pose une question épineuse :quelles sont les répercussions sur lesfemmes de l’embauche à la hausse de pro-fesseurs occasionnels? Elle décrit les réper-cussions sur les professeures occasionnellesde la prédominance d’un sexe sur l’autre, ycompris l’autocensure que suscite l’insécu-rité d’emploi, ce qui les incite à « ne pasprendre de chance » en classe au sujet dedivers enjeux, notamment, le féminisme.

Jo-Anne Dillabough de l’Université dela Colombie-Britannique demande com-ment et quand les modèles traditionnels del’art d’être parent et du travail changerontpour répondre aux besoins des parents tra-vailleurs maintenant que le stéréotype del’universitaire masculin « dégagé » est envoie de disparition?

Michael Kaufman, auteur largementpublié sur les relations entre hommes etfemmes, et Jason Laker de l’UniversitéQueen’s considèrent la problématiquehomme-femme d’un point de vue mas-culin et donnent une description sensibil-isée du contexte complexe de la probléma-tique homme-femme où évoluent lesjeunes hommes. Des jeunes réussissentmieux que d’autres, disentils, et affichentun large éventail de comportements direc-tifs et sexistes. Les auteurs décrivent desmoyens que les professeurs peuvent appli-quer pour aider les jeunes hommes dansleurs efforts, afin d’apprendre les relationsmodernes entre les sexes.

Nous nous intéressons ensuite dans leprésent numéro aux réalités des professeursdes minorités visibles et au milieu universi-

taire qui les a formés et qu’ils ont aussi influ-encé. George Elliott Clarke, qui a remportéle prix littéraire du gouverneur général pourla poésie, témoigne de son expérience à titrede professeur et de Canadien de la septièmegénération de descendance Afro-américaineet Mi’maq. Il considère que la diversificationdes professeurs « humanisera les scienceshumaines ». Taiaiake Alfred est témoin desréalités de ses collègues professeursautochtones et leur demande expressément,comme d’autres l’ont fait auparavant, desoutenir les efforts des leurs à titre de mem-bres de la collectivité universitaire. FrancesHenry et Carol Tator précisent que les uni-versités font toujours ouvertement preuve dediscrimination aux chapitres de l’embaucheet du programme d’études et plus subtile-ment, par l’intermédiaire d’un parti pris sys-témique contre tout ce qui n’est pas con-forme au modèle eurocentrique.

Notre section de critique d’ouvragesprésente des contributions stimulantes deprofesseurs qui travaillent dans le secteur,y compris Jeffrey Reitz, Linda Burnett,Roxanne Ng et Glen Jones.

Le chroniqueur humoriste StevenPenfold jette un regard narquois sur les défisque doit relever le professeur et le parent dejeunes enfants dans son charmant récit deses expériences de père et de professeur.

Mark Rosenfeld, rédacteur deAcademic Matters, conclut le numéro enexaminant les défis émotionnels et intel-lectuels que posent la discussion et ledébat sur des enjeux à caractère délicat,par exemple, la problématique homme-femme et la race. Il soutient fermementque « chacun » doit faire preuve d’em-pathie et de compréhension si nousvoulons que les initiatives sur l’équitésoient acceptées et perdurent. AAMM

Cibler l’équité : Le milieu universitaire s’exprime

Où en sommes-nous? Où allons-nous?


Women’s representation in Canadian universities as studentsand professors has been the focus of higher educationresearch and feminist activism in the academy for close to

40 years. The 1970 Royal Commission Report on the Status ofWomen brought the issue of women’s underrepresentation in uni-versities to national attention, highlighting that, in 1967, only 34.2per cent of full-time undergraduate students were women, fewerthan 20 per cent were graduate students. In the same year, only 13.4per cent of full-time faculty were women.

Universities, not always willingly, responded to employmentequity demands with changes to university policies and practices toimprove the climate and academic career prospects for women.Over a period of four decades, the number of women in Canadianuniversities has grown remarkably, both at the undergraduate andgraduate student levels, but has moved only glacially in the profes-soriate. In 2003-2004, women represented 58 per cent of full-timeundergraduate students, 48.7 per cent of full-time graduate students,but only 31.7 per cent of full-time faculty. One cannot deny thatchange has occurred, but numbers are only part of the story. In thisarticle, we report on the representation of women in the academyand examine the gendered landscape of Canadian universities. 1

The percentage of women full-time undergraduate students inthe 1960s was smaller than men’s, but it reached parity with menin 1988, exceeded men in the next year, and has steadilyincreased since. In 2004-2005, women were 58 per cent of full-time undergraduate and 49 per cent of graduate students. Womenin graduate programs accounted for 53 per cent of master’s and 46per cent of doctoral students.

Women crossed the magical threshold of 50 per cent in 1988not to accolades but to concerns of equity for men and the femi-nization of universities. Eighteen years later, women continue toenter universities in large numbers, but their numbers have notproduced a significant shift in the gendered structures of theacademy, for the distribution of women across undergraduate andgraduate programs continues to reflect the historical pattern ofgendered disciplines. Women at all levels in the humanities, edu-cation, and social and behavioural sciences constitute 66 percent, 76 per cent, and 62 per cent of students respectively, where-as women in mathematics, computer and information sciences,and architecture, engineering and related technologies representonly 27 per cent and 22 per cent of students enrolled. A 2006examination by Lesley Andres and Maria Adamuti-Trache of the

Forty years later, how are university women doing?

La majorité des étudiants universitaires auCanada sont des femmes, soit 58 %, maiselles représentent moins du tiers des pro-fesseurs à plein temps et seulement 18,1 %des professeurs titulaires. Actuellement,l’embauche de professeurs donne unechance d’établir un corps professoral quireflète le grand nombre d’étudiantes univer-sitaires, mais seulement la moitié des univer-sités qui ont fait l’objet du sondage engagentdes femmes à un taux de 40 % ou plus detoutes les nouvelles personnes embauchées.

Janice Drakich and Penni Stewart point outthat the current hiring wave, the first sincethe 1960s, could build a professoriate thatfinally reflects women’s participation inacademic life.

Fine and Applied Arts4%

Agriculture and BiologicalScience 4%

Education7%

Engineering and Applied Sciences

10%

Health Professionsand Occupations

10%

Mathematics and the Phyical Sciences

14%

Humanities and Related18%

Social Sciences and Related

33%

FFiigguurree11:: PPeerrcceennttaaggee ooff NNeeww FFaaccuullttyy AAppppooiinnttmmeennttss bbyy DDiisscciipplliinnee iinn OOnnttaarriioo UUnniivveerrssiittiieess,, 11999999 ttoo 22000044

academic positions, below assistant professor, with women makingup 54.2 per cent of this cohort.

The percentage of women across disciplines, again, mirrorsthe gendered university. Women in 2003-2004 were 47 per centof education faculty, 41 per cent of fine and applied arts andhumanities faculty, 39 per cent of health professions and occupa-tions faculty, 33 per cent of social science faculty, but only 15 percent of mathematics and the physical sciences and 11.2 per centof engineering faculty.

Tenure andpromotion are themost significantrites of passage ina successful aca-demic career. Nots u r p r i s i n g l y ,

women’s increasing presence in the professoriate has promptedexamination of the gendered nature of the academic careerprocess. Overwhelmingly, national and international researchhas demonstrated women’s disadvantage in tenure and promo-tion. Our own longitudinal analysis, with Michael Ornstein, ofprogression through the ranks for all full-time faculty in


e university women doing?gendered nature of university completion patterns over the last12-15 years by and within disciplinary fields concluded that thelarge increase in women’s university participation and graduationhas not been successful in changing substantially the landscape ofgender profiles across fields of study and programs.

Historically, women faculty have been relatively excluded fromthe academy and, particularly, from the higher ranks of the profes-soriate. In 1960, women constituted 11 per cent of full-time fac-ulty at Canadian universities and accounted for just four per centof full professors. By the early 1980s, littlehad changed, as women represented onlyfive per cent of full professors in Canadaand 16.8 per cent of all full-time faculty.These patterns of disadvantage persistedthroughout the 1980s and 1990s and con-tinue today. The most recent data fromStatistics Canada, for the academic year 2004-2005, indicate that28 per cent of tenured positions, 40 per cent of tenure-track posi-tions, and 45 per cent of non- tenure-track positions are held bywomen. Only 18.1 per cent of full professors are women, while 34per cent of associate professors and 41.3 per cent of assistant pro-fessors are women. Parity is achieved only at the lower ranks of

TThhee llaarrggee iinnccrreeaassee iinn wwoommeenn’’ss uunniivveerrssiittyy ppaarr--ttiicciippaattiioonn hhaass nnoott ssuubbssttaannttiiaallllyy cchhaannggeedd ggeennddeerrpprrooffiilleess aaccrroossss ffiieellddss ooff ssttuuddyy aanndd pprrooggrraammss


Canadian universities from 1984 to 1999 shows that the rates ofpromotion from assistant to associate professor differ only slight-ly between women and men. The median time to promotion isabout 0.4 years longer for women than for men. In promotionfrom associate to full professor, women’s disadvantage is muchgreater: about one year in the median time to promotion. Ourdata show that virtually all men and women who do not leavetheir institution are promoted to the level of associate professor.A reasonable inference is that they are also granted tenure.Moreover, there is no evidence of a peak in departures from uni-versities between years five and seven after appointment to assis-tant professor, which would be suggestive of persons leaving afterbeing denied tenure. There is essentially no difference betweenwomen and men in this respect.

Our analysis of promotion to full professor, however, suggestsdiscrimination against women more strongly. In promotion fromassociate to full professor, women’s disadvantage is much greater,growing to about one year in the median time to promotion. Themeasured cost—a delay of one year relative to men—is meaning-ful, though we would not say large.

Parity continues to elude academic women. Even taking intoaccount differences in year of appointment, discipline, and insti-tution, women associate professors are clearly less likely thanmale associates to be promoted to full professor and, where theyare promoted, are promoted more slowly. There have been manyefforts to ascribe gender differences in tenure and promotion toindividual and institutional characteristics, disciplinary cultures,and the academic pipeline.

The difference between men and women in the full professorcohort of 1984 to 1999 can partially be explained by the fact thatmen were hired earlier than women. We found, however, that gen-der differences in the promotion rates of faculty members are littleaffected by either their academic discipline or by the type of insti-tution they work for.

A 2005study by KarenGrant ofwomen admin-istrators in 92Canadian uni-versities found that women’s increasing number in the academyhas not translated into a surge in the number of women holdingleadership positions. Based on her 2004-2005 survey, Grant con-cluded that women constitute a minority in senior administra-tion. Women held about 30 per cent of administrative positions.Thirty-five per cent of all women in administration held posi-tions as heads, a junior level of administration. The secondlargest concentration of women was found in the position ofdirector (this included directors of research centres, libraries, andother administrative or academic units) and accounted for 20 percent of women administrators. At the decanal level, women indean and associate/assistant dean positions made up only about26 per cent of the category. As for the most senior levels, therewere 64 women.

The profile of women in Canadian universities presented so fardescribes, on the one hand, the growing presence of women oncampuses but, on the other hand, reveals how this feminization hasfailed to penetrate the still largely male world of academic prestige.Almost 60 per cent of the undergraduate student body is female

and, yet, as we move up the academic prestige ladder the percent-age decreases: 49 per cent of graduate students are women, butwomen make up only 31.7 per cent of faculty and 30 per cent ofadministrators. Women have made gains in enrolment andappointments even in the most male-entrenched sectors of engi-neering and science disciplines and are achieving tenure at thesame rate as men. Regrettably, however, women continue to be

clustered both as students and faculty infeminized disciplines; women faculty are notappointed to the rank of full professor at thesame rate or speed as men; and women con-tinue to be underrepresented in senioradministrative positions.

Our comparison of today with the 1960s is deliberate, in order toparallel the structural context of universities then and now. The1960s was a period of unprecedented expansion and reorganizationfor Canadian education. In that great peak of hiring, during whichthe total number of full-time faculty grew from about 16,691 in1967 to 27,112 in 1973, the percentage of women full-time facultyactually fell, from 13.4 per cent to 12.7 per cent. Until recently, thiswas the most significant opportunity to produce a major change inthe composition of faculty in Canadian universities, and we lost it.The post-1999 hiring wave provides Canadian universities withanother significant opportunity to restructure and rebuild the pro-fessoriate through replacement and growth. In 2000, Leanne Elliottof the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada project-ed that universities would hire between 2,500 to 3,000 faculty year-ly to 2010. From 1999 to 2004, Canadian universities appointed14,583 full-time faculty. Of these appointments, 5,628 or 38.6 percent were awarded to women. A larger percentage of women wasappointed at the rank of assistant professor (67.7 per cent) thanmen (64.3 per cent), and a smaller percentage of women was

WWoommeenn ffaaccuullttyy aarree nnoott aappppooiinntteedd ttoo tthhee rraannkk ooffffuullll pprrooffeessssoorr aatt tthhee ssaammee rraattee oorr ssppeeeedd aass mmeenn

Institution Female Total % Female

YYoorrkk UUnniivveerrssiittyy 528 1260 41.90%

BBrroocckk UUnniivveerrssiittyy 198 489 40.49%

WWiillffrriidd LLaauurriieerr UUnniivveerrssiittyy 168 429 39.16%

NNiippiissssiinngg UUnniivveerrssiittyy 45 117 38.46%

TTrreenntt UUnniivveerrssiittyy 93 252 36.90%

RRyyeerrssoonn UUnniivveerrssiittyy 216 588 36.73%

UUnniivveerrssiittéé dd’’OOttttaawwaa 324 912 35.53%

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff WWiinnddssoorr 177 513 34.50%

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TToorroonnttoo 642 1935 33.18%

LLaauurreennttiiaann UUnniivveerrssiittyy 105 324 32.41%

QQuueeeenn’’ss UUnniivveerrssiittyy 210 648 32.41%

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff WWeesstteerrnn OOnnttaarriioo 276 939 29.39%

CCaarrlleettoonn UUnniivveerrssiittyy 186 648 28.70%

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff GGuueellpphh 219 798 27.44%

MMccMMaasstteerr UUnniivveerrssiittyy 177 654 27.06%

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff WWaatteerrlloooo 198 873 22.68%

TTOOTTAALL 3762 11379 33.06%

Table 1: Rank Order of Percentage of Women Faculty at OntarioUniversities, 2004 to 20051

*** See Attached Documents for the Latest Data

appointed at the ranks of associate (nine per cent) and full profes-sor (three per cent) than men (15 per cent and nine per cent,respectively). Women exceeded the appointment of men in educa-tion (55 per cent), approached parity in the health professions andoccupations (49 per cent), the humanities (48 per cent), and in fineand applied arts (47 per cent) but were less than 20 per cent in bothengineering and applied sciences (15 per cent) and mathematicsand the physical sciences (19 per cent). Surprisingly, only 40 percent of positionsin the social sci-ences were award-ed to women.Given thatwomen haveexceeded men indoctoral enrol-ment and Ph.D.sawarded in the social sciences since 1997, their underrepresentationin the new appointments is both puzzling and disturbing.

A close-up look at Ontario universities is instructive, andwomen’s share of new appointments is of particular interest. Fortyper cent of the available faculty positions in Canada from 1999-2004 were filled in Ontario. An overview of the various disci-plines’ share of new appointments is presented in Figure 1.Roughly, 62 per cent of the new hires were in the social sciencesand humanities disciplines, 24 per cent in the natural sciences andengineering disciplines, and 10 per cent in health disciplines(clinical faculty are not included).

Table 1 ranks Ontario universities by the percentage of

women in full-time faculty in 2004-2005, ranging from a high of41.9 per cent at York University to a low of 22.7 per cent at theUniversity of Waterloo.

Table 2 shows that only half these universities appointedwomen at a rate of 40 to 50 per cent of all new hires. Not surpris-ingly, four of the five medical-doctoral institutions are at the bot-tom of the pack. Overall 2,271 women (or just 39 per cent of newhires) were appointed.

Canadian universities, midway throughthis hiring curve, have increased the numberof women in their universities. The data pre-sented, however, raise the question ofwhether the proportion of faculty womenhired is adequate to make women visible intraditionally male-dominated areas and tomake them more visible in disciplines nowdominated by women students. With

employment equity off the radar screens at most universities, wemay once again miss out on the opportunity, provided by the cur-rent hiring wave, to transform the professoriate.


WWiitthh eemmppllooyymmeenntt eeqquuiittyy ooffff tthhee rraaddaarrssccrreeeennss aatt mmoosstt uunniivveerrssiittiieess,, wwee mmaayy mmiissss oouutt

oonn tthhee ooppppoorrttuunniittyy pprroovviiddeedd bbyy tthhee ccuurrrreenntthhiirriinngg wwaavvee ttoo ttrraannssffoorrmm tthhee pprrooffeessssoorriiaattee

Janice Drakich is an associate professor in the Deparment of Sociology andAnthropology at the University of Windsor. Penni Stewart is an associate professor of sociology at York University.

# % # % # % # % # %

Brock University 3 25.0% 18 54.5% 105 50.0% 42 56.0% 162 50.0%

Wilfrid Laurier University 3 25.0% 3 14.3% 102 47.2% 0 0.0% 42 50.0%

University of Waterloo 6 15.4% 6 10.5% 63 26.6% 60 60.6% 282 49.7%

University of Guelph 9 27.3% 6 22.2% 102 44.2% 3 33.3% 54 46.2%

University of Windsor 3 16.7% 6 20.0% 78 37.1% 36 42.9% 150 45.0%

York University 6 25.0% 24 42.1% 192 49.6% 12 57.1% 54 42.9%

Nipissing University 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 42 53.8% 60 62.5% 147 40.5%

Ryerson University 3 25.0% 21 31.8% 78 41.3% 3 50.0% 120 40.4%

Trent University 0 0.0% 6 50.0% 42 48.3% 24 53.3% 213 39.0%

Carleton University 3 20.0% 12 28.6% 72 35.3% 18 37.5% 123 38.3%

Université d'Ottawa 6 16.7% 18 30.0% 105 36.8% 54 58.1% 210 38.0%

Laurentian University 0 0.0% 6 50.0% 42 43.8% 12 80.0% 123 37.6%

McMaster University 6 13.3% 18 25.0% 165 43.7% 42 56.0% 168 36.4%

University of Western Ontario 6 20.0% 18 37.5% 126 34.4% 24 40.0% 105 35.7%

University of Toronto 6 20.0% 12 33.3% 63 36.2% 12 44.4% 102 35.4%

Queen's University 12 33.3% 15 33.3% 96 40.5% 12 21.1% 84 21.9%

TOTAL 90 22.2% 186 28.3% 1545 40.3% 459 51.0% 2271 39.2%

Institution Full Professor

AssociateProfessor

AssistantProfessor

TotalsAll RanksBelow

AssistantProfessor

1 Statistics Canada: University and College Academic Staff Survey (UCASS)

Table 2: New Appointments Awarded to Women in Ontario Universities, 1999 to 2004 1

1 We are acutely aware of the absence of the inclusion of race, class, disability, andethnicity in this article. To speak only of gender in the 21st century is an anachronismperpetuated by the failure of universities and Statistics Canada to collect these data forfaculty and students. The only window available on the diversity in universities is thelimited data in the Canadian census.

AAMM

***See Attached Documents for Latest Data


Women storm ivory towers,” blare the headlines whenevera new female dean is appointed to a male-dominated fac-ulty. Certainly women are much better represented in

university leadership ranks than in the past, although a cynicmight say that women have been accepted in these positions justas the desirability of being an academic manager declines, givenglobal trends that boost workloads, corporatize institutions, andincrease accountability to the level of surveillance.

Typically, new university academic administrators have littlerelevant experience, minimal training, and unrealistic expecta-tions. Administrators have to learn to tolerate social isolation, lossof former collegiality, new self-images, and criticism. Of coursethey gain as well: new reference groups, new understandings, andsometimes the ability to make a difference for others. It is arguablethat the emotional upheavals of administration is the aspect forwhich any training and, certainly, prior experience as a facultymember least prepares a new administrator. When the newadministrator is already marginalized due to race and gender, thesituation can become even more challenging. Yet while some per-sons in these roles suffer, others flourish. I wondered why.

In an effort to answer my questions about the experiences ofwomen in leadership roles, I conducted semi-structured inter-views between 1999 and 2005 with 31 women academic admin-

istrators in three countries, including 12 from Canada. Thewomen were vice-provosts, deans, associate or vice deans, chairs,associate chairs, program coordinators, or research centre direc-tors. All work or worked in a faculty of education. Although spe-cific challenges varied by country and institution, most of thewomen reported problems and difficulties coping with these posi-tions. Often, there were gendered expectations, as, for example,when “Ursula” reported a tense relationship with a manager: “Hewas talking to me like a little girl…[then] we had a very difficultcommittee meeting, where my dean was screaming at me, andsuddenly I said, ‘You know, nobody will talk to me this way and…I went out of the meeting and I stayed two days at home’.”“Wendy” remarked: “I felt like I was the wife to the dean and themother to the faculty.” She talked about demands on her to benurturing: “Well, I mean the dean can’t stand to see people cry.So if people knew they were gonna cry, they came to me.”

Participants reported a long list of difficult situations and stres-sors, many related to increased levels of work, the compliance cul-ture that required endless paperwork and scrutiny, and unanticipat-ed responsibilities for restructuring and downsizing. The need todeal with high levels of interpersonal conflict came as an unwel-come surprise for some. The women also talked frequently aboutchallenges to their identities as scholars and the endless difficulties

Breaking through the ivyceiling: sinking or swimming?

Une étude des femmes des facultés d’éducation qui sont en position de leadership révèlede nombreux cas de stress, certains à cause de l’équilibre à établir entre le travail et lamaison, et d’autres à cause des caractéristiques de l’établissement. Des participantes, enparticulier à des postes moins élevés, ont quitté l’administration, mais un petit nombred’autres ont réussi à se tracer une carrière satisfaisante.

Sandra Acker looks at the challenges women face in academic administration

“

of balancing home responsibilities, finding time to replenish theirown energy levels, and meeting the voracious work expectationsthat held them in thrall. Repeatedly, they spoke of a loss of controlover their own time, of needing to be in the office for long hours,of the work being generated for them instead of chosen by them,and of the non-stop e-mail that filled their days.

They talked of working 16-hour days and of debilitatingfatigue: “It may just be the timeof year but I’m exhausted. Like Ijust find I go home on weekendsand I just sleep. I don’t do any-thing” (“Tania”). There is astark contrast between the free-dom of academic life that facul-ty members have enjoyed in thepast and the demands of administration that they are now expe-riencing. “Victoria” noted, “As an academic, if I didn’t get to mye-mail, you know, over two or three days, it wasn’t a big deal,right, and [now] I don’t have that kind of freedom.”

The career point at which these women take up significantadministrative responsibilities is relevant to their survival. Ineducation, in particular, academics are often older than thenorm, as many have had professional careers as school teachersbefore entering university work. By the time they come to berecruited for university leadership roles, there is little time left inwhich they could pursue a third career. If they leave their man-agement responsibilities and return to faculty life, their hard-wonknowledge goes with them. Quite a few of the women held jobslike associate chair, deputy head of department, director ofteacher education, or other positions that did not actually carrymuch in the way of compensation either financially or in reducedteaching loads. Typically, these women were among the most dis-contented and did not plan to stay in administration. The gener-al absence of succession planning or ensuring productive roles for

ex-administrators is likely to have a subtle and negative effect onthe university more generally, as the cycle of new recruits sinkingor swimming and often, eventually, exiting repeats itself.

Yet the women were not without resources. In quite a fewcases, they had materially changed the nature of the responsibil-ity they held by seeking a different position, altering the one theyheld, changing institutions, or leaving administration altogether.The most successful women found ways to feel pride in theirwork. After listing the drawbacks of her position, “Wendy” thenshifted to a positive assessment: “I felt in lots of ways reallyempowered, because if I wanted to make things happen, I coulddo it. I mean it might take its toll on me personally…but I couldmake it happen, and so I felt that I could make a difference. Icould make changes in students’ lives and in faculty’s lives.”

The handful of cases where the women were actually develop-ing a leadership career is instructive. Those women generallycame across as more confident and more positive than the others.Almost by definition, they were in the more senior positions—deans or above. That meant that they typically had better admin-istrative support and access to resources, as well as greater powerand status within the institution. There are various factors thatcontributed to their survival, ranging from a positive outlook togood situations, support, recognition, and fit with the institution.For example, “Denise” had held management positions at threeuniversities and was happy with her current post. In the first case,she “learned a lot of hard knocks and hard lessons pretty fast.”She built structures and “then my own colleagues saw me as aleader…now there’s the headship for the department, well you’rethe logical one.”

She echoes the complaints of other participants when shedescribes some of the difficulties in that position, but she decid-ed that the way to handle the problem was “to jump onto a big-

ger stage.” She talks about hav-ing a sense of confidence,knowing how organizationswork, standing up to people,and being a good negotiator.When she was interviewed forher current job, she says, “I sawthe fit…it seemed like every-

thing I had done in my career up to that point had prepared me.”There were many other illustrations in the interview of consciousthinking and planning in career terms.

“Denise” and other similar women have created a leadershipcareer, something very few of the others were able to do. I wouldnot recommend that every woman academic be encouraged tosurmount the challenges of leadership roles—there is too muchsacrifice required—yet if we are going to have better universities,we need committed individuals like many of those I interviewed.We seem only at the beginning of providing the supports andrewards and career structures that could make it possible to carveout such a career in a satisfying manner. Recognizing and com-municating the emotional dimensions of the roles, as well asclosely examining the dysfunctional aspects of leadership, willgive us a start on a solution.


VVaarriioouuss ffaaccttoorrss ccoonnttrriibbuutteedd ttoo wwoommeennaaddmmiinniissttrraattoorrss’’ ssuurrvviivvaall,, rraannggiinngg ffrroomm aappoossiittiivvee oouuttllooookk ttoo ggoooodd ssiittuuaattiioonnss,, ssuuppppoorrtt,,rreeccooggnniittiioonn,, aanndd ffiitt wwiitthh tthhee iinnssttiittuuttiioonn

Sandra Acker is a professor of sociology and equity studies at the OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.

AAMM


Les expériences de professeures féministes occasionnelles font l’objet d’un examen danscet article pour déterminer comment le féminisme peut compliquer leur poste fragile deprofesseures non permanentes. La matière des cours suscite la tension chez ces pro-fesseures dans le climat universitaire actuel de l’assurance de la qualité. Voici un résultatremarqué : les professeures féministes prennent moins de risques pédagogiques. Nousconstatons la gestion active des enseignantes pour ne pas offenser les étudiants avec lamatière des cours féministes.

CCuullttiivvaattiinngg MMiissssCCoonnggeenniiaalliittyyMichelle Webber describes the insecurities of contingent female faculty andthe dilemmas of feminism

OOnly recently has literature emerged concerning contin-gent faculty members in Canadian universities. But whilecomprehensive data are unavailable, we do know, thanks

to work by Indhu Rajagopal at York University that the propor-tion of women who are contingent academic labourers is largerthan the proportion of women who occupy secure full-time posi-tions in universities. Contingent academic workers are, in thewords of University of Toronto professor Linda Muzzin, a “femi-nized (and somewhat racialized, though still mostly white) groupsupporting the still largely white, male academic enterprise.”

Many organizational practices contribute to contingent facultymembers’ experiences of university life. This was clearly evidentfrom an investigation I conducted on the social organization offeminist teaching. The contingent faculty members in this proj-ect discussed issues similar to those raised in other literatureconcerning non-permanent faculty: they are asked to teach thelarge, first-and second-year courses; they rarely teach courses intheir areas of specialization; they feel fortunate when given theopportunity to teach the same course twice; they are often spa-tially marginalized from the departments they teach in (i.e. theiroffices, if they are lucky enough to have an office, are often locat-

ed outside of their departments); and their high teaching loadsmake it difficult to meet the research and publication recordneeded to secure tenure-track positions.

All these issues are, of course, worth exploring. What I foundof particular interest, however, are those contingent facultymembers who are feminist (and who teach either in women’sstudies or in courses that are cross-listed with women’s studies)and how their feminism complicates their tenuous positions asnon-permanent faculty members.

Tension emerges for contingent feminist faculty at the level ofcourse content within the current university climate of qualityassurance. One mechanism of quality assurance is the use ofanonymous student course evaluations. Faculty members reporthigh anxiety around this evaluation. They are concerned thatstudents will respond negatively to feminist course content andwill evaluate these feminist courses as poor. Non-permanent fac-ulty are aware (or at least perceive) that student course evalua-tions are an important tool used by chairs of departments or otheradministrators for consideration of future employment. But as a1997 study argued, indicators on teaching that are pulled fromstudent course evaluations “do not always account for students’(skeptical and often negative) perceptions of women in positionsof intellectual authority.” Further, the same study concluded,women’s concentration in large undergraduate courses, usually atthe first-and second-year levels, “puts women’s teaching perform-ance at the mercy of beginning undergraduates, who are oftenless than ‘fair’ in their assessment of women academics.”

Post-structuralists argue that student course evaluations repre-sent an example of disciplinary technologies that are being uti-

lized in the academy to create docile academic workers. In thiscase, we can see that these disciplinary technologies work to nor-malize particular kinds of teaching practices. The faculty membersinterviewed talk about “watering down” their feminist content inorder to sustain more positive teaching evaluations. As Cathy, oneof the faculty members I interviewed in my study, shared, “If youhave students who just don’t care or don’t like you or whatever,then you get worried about being screwed on your course evalua-tions.” Students’ negative reaction to feminist content may wellaffect their overall assessment of a teacher’s abilities.

The non-permanent feminist faculty speak about managingtheir teaching identities to secure non-problematic evaluations.As one faculty member states, “One of my tactics is to appeal interms of an identity… to win the Miss Congeniality prize.” Theyare preoccupied with student reaction and the possibility ofobtaining future work in the academy. What is interesting is thatit is their desire to include feminist material in their courses thatworries them so much. For many students, my study shows, femi-nist theory is apparently still beyond the boundaries of acceptableor legitimate knowledge. As Stacy, another interviewee, said:

In the current regime of quality assurance, faculty memberstake fewer pedagogical risks. This lack of risk taking is certainlyevidenced by the faculty members in my project. It is also likelythat faculty members, such as ones surveyed for a 2005 study,“divert or postpone scholarly efforts that reflect feminist values toengage in work they believe will be less risky.”

Departments chairs, who, ideally, should be resources for aca-demics teaching for the first time are also part of this climate ofquality assurance via surveillance. One faculty member reportedthat she worries about students complaining to the chair about herfeminist course content. Another faculty member experiencedharassment from two male students about “lesbian, male-bashing,feminist” course content. Yet she did not approach the chair of herdepartment for advice (or support) because she was concerned thechair would not defend her course but merely see her as an incom-petent course director who should not be hired in the future.

This climate has consequences for feminists in the academy.Contingent faculty choose to present liberal versions of feministmaterial they think will be palatable to conservative students. Asfar back as 1991, studies revealed pressure on faculty to presentliberal visions of feminist thought, but as the women in this studyreport, even this liberal feminist material is met with negativity.Presenting liberal material as the only kind of feminist thought,however, has implications for the creation of knowledge and forwhat kind of feminist thought ends up being presented to stu-dents as legitimate. The academic field of women’s studies may beaffected as insecurely employed, contingent faculty membersalter their pedagogical commitments in order to negotiate theirway into the academy.


Michelle Webber is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology atBrock University.

NNoonn--ppeerrmmaanneenntt ffeemmiinniisstt ffaaccuullttyy ssppeeaakk aabboouuttmmaannaaggiinngg tthheeiirr tteeaacchhiinngg iiddeennttiittiieess ttoo sseeccuurree

nnoonn--pprroobblleemmaattiicc ssttuuddeenntt eevvaalluuaattiioonnss

AAMM

There might be things that would I do differently, teaching things likefeminist theory or whatever, if I was tenured. So there’s always the sensa-tion, like one thing when I talk about managing the course so it’s okay forthe students and it’s also creating harmony…so you’re not likely to get theworst course evaluations.


Iam a parent and I am an academic.Sometimes I don’t know which comesfirst. Like parenting itself, the academ-

ic job never leaves me, and I am left try-ing to give more than I have. This soundslike railing against my lot. It is not meantto be. I left my largely working-classchildhood and inherited maternal train-ing. I got an education and a middle- classjob. I walked across the class divide. Iaccomplished this with the help of myparents, my friends, low tuition fees (itwas still the 1980s), a glorious recogni-tion of the changing nature of the “fami-ly,” the extraordinary patience of my eld-est child (he was born while I was a doc-toral student), the rise of the women’smovement and feminism(s), and a gener-al recognition that even a plumber’s daughter ought to have theright to a university education. I count myself extremely lucky. Idon’t wish to undermine the different forms of work that other par-ents do, much of which involves far greater sacrifices than any Ihave ever made. I am thinking of “domestic workers,” and workersin care-centres and retirement homes. I am thinking about thosewomen arriving here from war-torn countries and/or who may notspeak English as a first language.

But in reflecting upon my own “personal dramas” across theyears, it does not feel as if I have been following an easy road. Istill remember nursing my youngest son, Pascal, at a meeting fora summer program I was respon-sible for coordinating whileworking at the University ofToronto. I was supposed to beon maternity leave at the time,but there was just no one elseon hand to do the job. It had tobe done and I had to do it. It was part of my duty as an academ-ic and a teacher. This episode was but one among many, a succes-sion of similar contingencies that meant that, in the end, therewas no such thing as a “real” maternity leave.

As a researcher, I study the working lives of women in highereducation. As a female academic, I live out such a life myself.What I have learned from both experiences is that within theacademy the paradoxes of female work and the balance of familylife are often hidden, masked, or left unacknowledged in the larg-er institutional context. Classes often start at 4:30 p.m., depart-mental orientations are often held on weekends, as are departmen-

tal retreats. Why do our colleagues sup-port these measures? It is because theuniversity benefits. But for the widerlives of women academics, these insti-tutional benefits are won at huge cost.

Undoubtedly the greatest challengecomes in struggling to incorporate par-enting into one’s “career-based lifespace.” The idea of taking breaks eitherto have or care for children stands inthe way of a culture which has been his-torically oriented towards the condi-tions for achieving male academic suc-cess. The traditional model of the inde-pendent scholar, autonomous andunencumbered, is a fraught one for anywhose goal is to become a learnedfemale in the academy. To embrace this

powerful, inherited image is to inflict high levels of guilt uponwomen academics who are also parents. Such guilt is expressed inthe residual anxiety either that you should not be working in thismanner, or that that you are somehow undermining the best inter-ests of your children if you do.

For women academics to be “successful” on the university’s terms“they have to ‘become part of the personality’ of the institution.”Things will continue in this way unless we build upon the potentialfor challenging historic models of academic labour.

Drawing upon our lived experiences of work in the academywe need to ask how we seek to change public understandings of

women’s work and parenting.And what structural changesshould we seek to supportwomen in reconciling thedemands that fall upon them?Equally important, how can weavoid the kinds of generational

conflicts that operate between women at different levels of theinstitutional structure as well as between women workers bothwith and without children? Ultimately we must ask: How do wekeep children on our agenda as we work towards improving theworking conditions of women’s life in the academy? My own chil-dren often tell me that they’d like me to work less. I agree. Whencandid they say I could elect for early retirement? Is 43 a good agefor such a request? You tell me.

Jo-Anne Dillabough says the traditional male model of the unencumbered scholar doesn’t work anymore

Parenting and working: a model change needed

Jo-Anne Dillabough is an associate professor in the Department of EducationStudies at the University of British Columbia.

WWiitthhiinn tthhee aaccaaddeemmyy,, tthhee ppaarraaddooxxeess ooff ffeemmaallee wwoorrkk aanndd tthhee bbaallaannccee ooff ffaammiillyy

lliiffee aarree oofftteenn hhiiddddeenn

AAMM

• Two young men go to the movies together and ensure there isan empty seat between them. But the same two will give eachother a boisterous hug from time to time.

• A gay man lives in a campus residence, enjoying his experiencewith straight roommates and floormates without harassment.

• Friends of a male student chide him for refusing to drink afourth shot, calling him “little girl” and “Mary.”

• A male student is berated by some male and female friends forrefusing to wear a white ribbon on December 6.

It is a complex and contradictory time to be a guy on a uni-versity campus. Almost 40 years since the modern wave of femi-nism first arrived on Canadian campuses, the shift has beenremarkable: in the ratio of male and female students (and,increasingly, faculty), in the range of courses in women’s and gen-der studies (and the inclusion of much more content withinmany disciplines), and in the attention given to issues such asviolence against women.

Men arriving on a campus come into an environment wherethere is an assumption of women’s equality, even if reality doesn’talways match. These men also know they can’t rely on the 8,000-year-old affirmation action policy that once determined theywouldn’t have to compete for jobs with the female half of theplanet. These men also tend to have very different expectationsabout their own career paths compared to a couple of generationsago, in particular, in striking a balance between work and familylife. Most enter relationships and will eventually leave universitywith an assumption they will someday be taking on significantresponsibilities (and, in some cases, even primary responsibility)as parents and as individuals who share domestic work.

And yet, for all these changes, a significant minority of malestudents engage in a range of violent behaviours, including sexu-

al assault and physical violence of a girlfriend; many more engagein forms of controlling behaviour. Far too many young men willnot feel comfortable interrupting a misogynist comment or sayingsomething to a friend who is joking about rape. In spite of anacceptance of sexual diversity, homophobia (often in disguisedforms) remains alive. In the movies and TV shows they see, inthe music they listen to, in the video games they play, thereremains a vast edifice of images that celebrate traditional defini-tions of masculine power and domination. And yet these areimages that are constantly contested around them.

Perhaps it’s true of all people, but many men traditionallylearned to thrive in patriarchal cultures where their roles andgender relations were clearly defined, and they could focus onworking hard to master them. Of course, even when this role wasrigidly defined, it wasn’t actually achievable, and it had costs notonly to women but, paradoxically, to men as well (in spite of theprivileges men enjoyed). Now, there are multiple roles that mencan take on, multiple demands, changing expectations, and rulesthat sometimes seem to change moment to moment.

Even fellow men, and indeed women, differ in how they validateor criticize any given choice or behaviour made by a man. Sadly, itis still a minority of male students who consciously explore this con-test of meanings or consciously question the meanings of beingmale. And yet, part of what is going on all around them, and part ofwhat they are engaging in, is this very challenge. Those young menwho do make an effort to confront sexism receive both compli-ments and criticisms from other men and from women. For manyyoung men we talk to, there is a feeling they just can’t win.

What lies underneath the reluctance to consciously challengethe remaining edifice of oppressive gender relations or to con-sciously question their own take on masculinity? What gets in theway of challenging sexist words and behaviour? In part, it is the


MMaassccuulliinniittyy iinn tthhee qquuaaddThe dominant forms of masculinity areabout power and fear, write MichaelKaufman and Jason Laker, and youngmen are muddling through uncertain gen-der terrain. But universities can help them


privileges men still enjoy in a male-dominated society: why buckwhat seems to work for your half of humanity? But it’s muchmore, and it is the story of what one of us has described as “men’scontradictory experiences of power.” As much as anything else, itis fear. Fear of not being one of the boys. Fear of breaking whatare assumed to be the norms in what men believe. Fear of beingridiculed. Fear of not being a real man. Fear of other men, medi-ated within all-male environments. Fear that is a constituent partof our dominant forms of masculinity.

This fear explains many of the paradoxes we witness. In spiteof the presence of women students as academic equals, in spite ofa 40-year-old discourse on women’s equality, in spite of theexpressed belief among most men that women should be and areequal, in spite of the breakdown of some of the physical taboosamong men, many young men still haven’t figured out how toshed their armour. They are too scared to take the risk of beinggenuine with each other. When this does happen, when ourbrothers are genuine with us, we often miss an opportunity bychanging the subject or teasing them. We continue to be afraidof each other, despite wanting—sometimes desperately—to beclose. If our fellow men get too close, perhaps they will seethrough this armour, and we will be exposed as a fraud. The dom-inant forms of masculinity are about power and fear.

Critiques (by both women and men) of sexist behaviours andoppressive gender relations called on men to question essentialist

notions of masculinity. Such notions influenced us in ways thathurt women through the acceptance of violence, systematicexclusion, and belittling treatment. While giving men compara-tive advantages and not, in the same sense, being oppressive tomen, these notions robbed us of elements of our own humanityas well. Today, young men come to campus with conflictingdemands and ideas about masculinity—the new meeting the old.They get confused but still have precious little permission toadmit to that confusion. More senior men, whether professors orstaff, are not always ready to engage in thoughtful discussionabout this topic, having their own confusion to deal with. (Or,where faculty and staff will deal with sexism, such discussions canbe abstracted from the lived realities of their lives: while theymay well agree that “the personal is political,” discussing theirown personal engagement and struggles may well seem off limitin an academic context.)

Young men muddle through uncertain times. Faculty and staffcan lend a helping hand:• Those working in student services, residence life, sports, health

services, and as academic mentors do well to acknowledge thatwhat passes for certainty among young men is more often adefense against a fear of not making the grade as a man. Wemust support and encourage the creation of spaces for youngmen to gain awareness and to learn to challenge both theirunacknowledged fears and the extant privileges of males.

• Male professors can learn to take some of the same personalrisks as a previous generation of women academics did by find-ing appropriate ways to be open about our own experiences asmen. This can help create safety for male students to exploretheir own realities.

• Male and female faculty and staff can encourage male studentsto become active in issues promoting gender equality, challeng-ing homophobia, and challenging men’s violence againstwomen. Our point is simple: while most of our male studentsare not responsible for committing acts of violence or promot-ing homophobia, we need to encourage all men to take respon-sibility for ending these affronts to basic human rights, safety,and dignity.

• Male and female professors can encourage and validate theexploration of issues concerning men and masculinity as a validpart of research, not only within gender studies per se, but alsoas a dimension of all social relations and part of what informsour approaches to a wide range of disciplines, including thenatural and applied sciences.

On campuses across Canada, as in communities around theworld, the fantastic changes in gender relations can be difficult tonegotiate. But more and more men are struggling with thesechanges. Our institutions can play a positive role in helpingyoung men understand, negotiate, and embrace gender equalityand equity, but also embrace changes that will improve not onlythe lives of women, but will improve their lives as well.

OOuurr iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss ccaann ppllaayy aa ppoossiittiivvee rroollee iinnhheellppiinngg yyoouunngg mmeenn uunnddeerrssttaanndd,, nneeggoottiiaattee,,aanndd eemmbbrraaccee ggeennddeerr eeqquuaalliittyy

Michael Kaufman, founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, works internation-ally as an educator and policy advisor promoting gender equality and workingto end violence against women. Jason Laker is associate vice-principal anddean of student affairs at Queen’s University, and holds a cross-appointmentin women’s studies.

AAMM


In May 2006, a Globe and Mail book reviewer attacked my lat-est poetry collection, Black, partly on the grounds that, becauseI’m a tenured professor of English at the University of Toronto

and snookered the 2001 Governor-General’s Award for Poetry, Icannot pronounce any legitimate quarrel with English letters orstate any genuine complaint about racism. The commentaryimplied that my successes result from my trading on my blackidentity, that, in effect, I profit by “playing the race card”: I’m nota black professional; rather, I’m a professional black—but suspect.My melanin is meretricious; my insurgency is void.

These criticisms echo those I attracted when, as a doctoral stu-dent in English at Queen’s University, I was informed that my dis-sertation on African-American and English-Canadian (white-authored) poetry did not merit the same support as that affordedclassmates scrutinizing British literature. Indeed, I received much

practice in defending my dissertation—a comparative, post-colo-nial examination of the aforementioned poetries—because myEuropean-Canadian interlocutors often wondered, fiercely, “Really?You can compare African Americans and white Canadians?”

These critiques stress the marginal position of “blackness.” Asa cultural identity, set of protocols, and as a poetics, it has notbeen welcome in Canadian institutions, including the academy,but also not in mass media and pop culture, business, courts, leg-islatures, and political parties. Black folks are still perceived asautomatically alien, naturally un-Canadian, and indelibly other.

I acknowledge that Her Excellency the Right HonourableMichaelle Jean, a black woman, is the head of state, and that HerHonour the Honourable Mayann Francis, also a black woman, isNova Scotia’s lieutenant-governor. Yet, neither appointment,though they exemplify the virtue of tolerance and the spirit of

Professing blacknessGGeeoorrggee EElllliiootttt CCllaarrkkee ssaayyss tthhee ssttrruuggggllee iiss ttoo mmaakkee tthhee hhuummaanniittiieess llooookk mmoorree lliikkee hhuummaanniittyy

multiculturalism, prevents any white Canadian from demanding,anywhere and anytime, “Where are you from?”

Problematically however, this inquiry is never innocent: thepresumption is that I cannot be from Canada, that I could not havebeen born here, that I cannot be a “real” Canadian, that I cannothave a Canadian ancestry that extends back to 1813 (and further,considering my Aboriginal heritage). The proof? My “race,” my“accent,” my rambunctious laugh, my “musical” poetry....

Worse, still, is the ongoing erasure of African-Canadian histo-ry from public consciousness and the perpetual silencing ofAfrican-Canadian critique. The aforementioned Globe and Mailreviewer attempted just this strategy, hinting that I may not prop-erly articulate my specific, racial experience in this country. (Suchis Verboten.) Too, my initial, academic critics fretted that myfocus on black literature underlined my wasteful attention towoefully inferior works.

(My observation is, unfortunately, correct: At Queen’sUniversity in the summer of 1991, a visiting professor informedour Southern U.S. novel class that no African-American writersmerited inclusion on his syllabus. [Goodbye, Richard Wright,Alice Walker, Zora Neale Hurston, et al!] Instead, white authorswere posited as the unimpeachable and objective interpreters ofblack history and culture.)

These realities have elicited my response, scholarly and creative.My move to the southern United States in 1994 to take up a posi-tion at Duke University as assistant professor of English andCanadian studies inspired me to re-jig my interests. I began to sketchand colour in the concept of African-Canadian literature, serving,thus, to define, highlight, and popularize this field of inquiry.

My foundational labours included chronicling a history anddrafting an expansive bibliography of African-Canadian litera-ture (1996), editing an anthology of contemporary writers, Eyeingthe North Star: Directions in African-Canadian Literature (1997),and announcing, accidentally, a theory of African-Americaninfluence on some African-Canadian texts (1996). On the artis-tic front, I penned an opera libretto and a verse-play, BeatriceChancy (1998, 1999), dealing with the repressed history ofAfrican slavery in Nova Scotia, as well as a feature-film screen-play for CBC-TV, One Heart Broken Into Song (1999).

My location outside Canada improved my insight into theways in which “race” and racism operate in this northernDominion. Strange it was, though, to return home and hearCanadians ask, “How are you coping with all that racism in theSouth?” I learned to answer, “No problem: I grew up in Halifax.”

Accepting a 1999 offer from the University of Toronto toresearch and teach African-Canadian literature here, I vowed Iwould never relinquish what the United States of America andDuke University gave me: a voice—I mean—a sense, a style, ofempowerment. This fact, plus the lived experience of growing upin African Nova Scotia (Africadia), in the radical 1960s and theprogressive 1970s, has equipped me to speak publicly about “race,”

racism, visible minorities in Canada, and attendant, socio-politi-cal matters. (I admit it is splendid to possess tenure: it means I cancirculate—even broadcast—honest speech and study.)

In terms of my personal treatment as, I believe, the first per-son of African heritage hired in a tenure-track position in thedepartment of English at the University of Toronto, I cannot cryfoul. In 2002, the University of Toronto Press published myOdysseys Home: Mapping African-Canadian Literature. In 2003, Iwas appointed the inaugural E.J. Pratt Professor of CanadianLiterature, a title accompanied by an annual, five-figure researchgrant, and designated for a professor-poet. It is a liberating posi-tion: I travel and buy books.

True: because our departmental offerings are mainly half-courses, I have had to justify teaching African-Canadian litera-ture as a full-year, undergraduate course. But this debate hasreminded several of us that no university is an island. We livebodily in society. Urban Canada is multicultural: we must deliv-er courses that reflect this exciting reality.

Where we must improve—not only at the University of Toronto—is in diversifying the pools and short-lists of candidates. Visibleminorities must be considered seriously for teaching “mainstream”Canadian literature as well as the British canon, from Beowulf toPinter. White privilege, in these areas and others, must end. Theivory tower must become a prism.

When this transformation occurs, we will know, in literarycriticism, an expansion of the vistas of reference and an escala-tion in excellence. Our struggle is to make the humanities lookmore like humanity.


George Elliott Clarke teaches English at the University of Toronto. His work-in-progress is a verse play about Pierre Elliott Trudeau, titled “Trudeau: LongMarch, Shining Path,” to be published by Gasperau Press in April 2007.

AAtt QQuueeeenn’’ss UUnniivveerrssiittyy iinn tthhee ssuummmmeerr ooff 11999911,,aa vviissiittiinngg pprrooffeessssoorr iinnffoorrmmeedd oouurr SSoouutthheerrnnUU..SS.. nnoovveell ccllaassss tthhaatt nnoo AAffrriiccaann--AAmmeerriiccaann

wwrriitteerrss mmeerriitteedd iinncclluussiioonn oonn hhiiss ssyyllllaabbuuss

AAMM


Contrary to conventional wisdom and common practice inCanadian universities today, “Indigenous academics” arenot faculty members who happen to have real or imagined

Native ancestry (the two forms are equal under the law, by theway). Being an Indigenous academic, for those of us who are, is amore serious matter that goes beyond glorifying one’s bloodlineor tokenizing one’s status as an “aboriginal Canadian.”Indigeneity is a struggle, not a label. And for those of us whowork in academia, accepting one’s indigeneity means a constantfight to remain connected to our communities, to live our cul-ture, and to defend our homelands, all the while fulfilling ourprofessional duties inside what is, essentially, a central institutionof colonial dominion. It’s a complicated and contentious exis-tence, if it is done properly.

There are many post-colonials among us who believe that uni-versities must change their structures, rules, and cultures toaccommodate the new presence of aboriginal people in the heartof whiteness, so to speak. I do not share this view—and notbecause I disagree that universities are the heart of whiteness!—but mainly because I have come to realize the decolonizingpotential of the creative tension of the Indigenous–universitydynamic on both persons and collectives. I believe, after 14 yearsas an academic, that if Indigenous academics are to serve any use-ful role in helping our people survive and in decolonizing thiscountry, we have to embrace, learn from, and teach about the dis-cordant situation we find ourselves in because it simply reflectsthe broader reality faced by our people in their confrontationswith the established order.

Pacifying our existence as Indigenous academics while theactual state of relations between our peoples remains aggressivelycolonial would cut us off from the reality of our people, renderingus useless, or worse, fashioning us into tools of white power. Infact, many of us who claim to be “Indigenous academics” do walkin beauty on the peaceful path to irrelevance. But this is puttingyour situation as a university professor before your identity as aNative, in effect it means becoming an “academic Indigene,” andthat just does not sound right to me.

Our experiences in universities reflect the tensions anddynamics of our relationships as Indigenous peoples interactingwith people and institutions in society as a whole: an existence ofconstant and pervasive struggle to resist assimilation to the val-ues and culture of the larger society. In this, contrary to what issometimes naively assumed by us and propagated by universitiesthemselves, universities are not safe ground. In fact, they are noteven so special or different in any meaningful way from otherinstitutions; they are microcosms of the larger societal struggle.But they are the places where we as academics work—they areour sites of colonialism.

“The university is contentious ground….” This may seem likean obvious point, given the petty controversies and personal con-flicts that are facts of life in any academic institution. Indigenouspeople in universities have for the most part proven unpreparedmentally, emotionally, and physically to carry on the struggles of

Indigenizeingthe academy?An argumentagainstTTaaiiaaiiaakkee AAllffrreedd aarrgguueess tthhaatt IInnddiiggeennoouuss ffaaccuullttyy

sshhoouulldd eemmbbrraaccee tthhee ssttrruugggglleess ooff tthheeiirr nnaattiioonnss

wwiitthhiinn tthhee uunniivveerrssiittyy

their nations inside academia. Most Indigenous people workingin universities are either alienated or escapees from their nationsand have for the most part retreated to the university and insu-lated themselves from any accountability to the conflicts andchallenges being faced by their people in the communities. Ibelieve, in our academic politics, that we are not making a coura-geous stand for the integrity of our nationhood or pride in ourIndigenous cultures; rather we are rushing headlong into themainstream or bourgeois cultural camp. It has become clear thatin withdrawing from relevancy and immersing ourselves in thebattle for personal gain, or involving ourselves only in discipli-nary and academic fights, we are playing assimilation’s end-game.The important struggles are not in the low-stakes squabbling overprofessional recognition, manoeuvring for prestige and status, orscrambling for departmental resources for our programs.

Given that academe today is such a crucial part of the systemof injustices against our nations, Indigenous academics have aresponsibility to oppose not only any specific acts of aggressionand denial of freedom against themselves and their interests butalso the role and function of the university-dwelling colonialpower itself. Our people are on the verge of losing an entire wayof life, as well as their memory of the histories that not only sus-tain us as unique cultures but that are also the foundation of thepolitical and economic rights and freedoms that we still do have.All of this is being lost at an astounding rate.

This is where I have always found the most important role forIndigenous academics: as teachers of an empowering and truthfulsense of the past and who we are as peoples, and as visionaries ofa dignified alternative to the indignity of cultural assimilationand political surrender. In my own work, I have done my best toemulate the greats in this respect, such as the legal and politicalthinkers Vine Deloria, Jr. and Leroy Little Bear, the anthropolo-gist Beatrice Medicine, and the historian Howard Adams. Theirwork as scholars and teachers is exemplary in the way they havesought to honour knowledge from traditional cultures, fight forindependence in the face of conquest, and denounce and con-front false claims of colonial authority and imperial legitimacy.

I have always seen the university as a ground of contention.In this, like many friends and colleagues who are Indigenous aca-demics and who love their people and the land, I am committedto integrating traditional knowledge and bringing an authenticcommunity voice to my work. I do the best I can to abide by a tra-ditional ethic in fulfilling my professional responsibilities. I wel-come as necessary the conflicts that emerge with established rulesand patterns of authority and conventions of practices. They aresigns of movement away from our imperial past.


Taiaiake Alfred is a Canada Research Chair in Studies of Indigenous Peoples anddirector of the Indigenous governance programs at the University of Victoria.

IItt hhaass bbeeccoommee cclleeaarr tthhaatt iinn wwiitthhddrraawwiinngg ffrroommrreelleevvaannccyy aanndd iimmmmeerrssiinngg oouurrsseellvveess iinn tthhee bbaattttllee ffoorr ppeerrssoonnaall ggaaiinn,, oorr iinnvvoollvviinngg oouurrsseellvveessoonnllyy iinn ddiisscciipplliinnaarryy oorr aaccaaddeemmiicc ffiigghhttss,, wwee aa rree ppllaayyiinngg aassssiimmiillaattiioonn’’ss eenndd ggaammee

AAMM


Racism is deeply embedded in the culture of academia, asreflected in curriculum, pedagogy, hiring, selection and pro-motion practices, and in the lack of mentoring and support

for faculty of colour. The literature we have reviewed1 and theinterviews we have conducted show that many faculty of colourshare a remarkable commonality: in the experiences they havehad, the barriers they have encountered, the pain and frustrationthey have endured, and the sense of isolation, marginality, andexclusion from the institutional white culture they have felt.

For despite the claims of equity found in the mission statementsand policies of many universities, academics of colour as well asAboriginal faculty believe that institutions of higher learningremains a zone of whiteness—which reflect the dominance of white,Eurocentric values and exclusions.2 Whiteness plays a crucial role inthe social construction of racism.It refers to a collective set ofbeliefs as well as discursive andsocial practices that create hierar-chy, inferiorization and marginal-ization, but which appear as nor-mal and natural to most white people. Universities appear not tounderstand that policies dealing with access, inclusiveness, and equi-ty cannot be achieved without a fundamental change in the cultureof the system, meaning a significant shift in values and norms thatoperate almost invisibly but leave their imprint.

Universities commonly and powerfully resist any but the mostcosmetic changes to their core culture. The reputation of the uni-versity as a site of liberal ideology allows this, leading to the viewthat issues of race are isolated and not embedded in the structuresand systems operating in the everyday life of the academy. Withthe exception of a few universities, however, the absence of anysubstantive, critical assessment of issues related to racism has pre-served the status quo.

First, older, more overt forms of racism continue to occur.One important indicator of this is the under-representation ofAboriginal and people of colour in the system. Although manyuniversities, particularly those in major urban centres, now havea very diverse student body, that diversity is poorly reflected atthe level of faculty, especially in the social science and humani-ties disciplines. At one major Canadian university, for example,nearly half of its student body comes from a variety of diversebackgrounds, yet less than 11 per cent of faculty does—and themajority of these are found in engineering and other sciences.

Secondly, systemic barriers persist within Canadian universi-ties. One such barrier is the curriculum because it validates onlyparticular kinds of knowledge. Eurocentric frameworks, standards,and content are not only often given more resources but also more

status, especially when it comesto hiring, promotion, andtenure decisions. Many facultyof colour have argued that onlyspecific types of knowledge arerecognized as legitimate, there-

by excluding those that diverge from the Eurocentric norm.3 Theyrefer, for example, to the need to broaden the curriculum toinclude more emphasis on non-European areas of the world, morecourses that focus on racism and other forms of oppression.Furthermore, this ideological framework influences the choice ofwhat courses are designated core curriculum, the selection of cur-riculum materials, such as required course readings, the mode oforganizing workshops and seminars, as well as decisions about vis-iting lecturers and honorary degrees. Faculty struggles to recentreAboriginal history, philosophy, and culture and to incorporateanti-racism models of knowledge are often met with resistanceand hostility from white students and a lack of support from bothcolleagues and administration. 4

FFrraanncceess HHeennrryy aanndd CCaarrooll TTaattoorr ddeessccrriibbee hhooww tthhee EEuurroocceennttrriicc uunniivveerrssiittyy ssttiillll ddiissccrriimmiinnaatteess

Through a looking glass: enduring racism on the university campus

Through a looking glass: enduring racism on the university campus

UUnniivveerrssiittiieess ccoommmmoonnllyy aanndd ppoowweerrffuullllyy rreessiisstt aannyy bbuutt tthhee mmoosstt ccoossmmeettiicc cchhaannggeess

ttoo tthheeiirr ccoorree ccuullttuurree

These and many other systemic forms of bias and discriminationembedded in the institutional practices and procedures within theacademy have a significant impact on career aspirations and mobili-ty, especially for women of colour and Aboriginal women. Thetenure process, for one, is viewed as one of the most overt manifes-tations of the continuing power of white-dominated, male culture.For example, a recent Queen’s University report on systemic racismfound that more than one half of the white faculty thought thetenure process equitable, whereas only one third of the faculty ofcolour believed it to be equitable.5 Speaking of her own tenure expe-rience, one Aboriginal academic observed that her effort to bringAboriginal “voices” into the classroom was not valued as a scholarlycontribution. Many other women of colour have received responsesto research criticized as too political, too ideological, or too rhetori-cal. Research and writing focusing on community, social action, andsocial change are often challenged.6 Faculty of colour has spokenabout expectations and demands that go beyond those made on theirwhite colleagues. They commonly experience demands from minor-ity students wishing to have mentors and role models to whom theycan relate, as well as demands from the broader student populationseeking their expertise. Their colleagues require speakers on issues ofdiversity and racism, while administrators need their physical pres-ence on committees to prove that the committee is representative.They also face expectations from their respective communities tosupport organizational and community development programs.

Narratives written by many of these academics are character-ized by self-doubt, apprehension, frustration, and disappointment.7

The workplace climate is inhospitable and leads to high levels ofstress, physical ill health, and depression. The lack of support fromcolleagues, chairs of departments, and deans confronted withracism in employment or students’ racist behaviour create a senseof isolation and alienation. Some academics of colour talk aboutthe hostility and tension of both white students and colleagues asa minefield through which they constantly have to navigate. Manyhave suggested that they do not feel safe in the classroom. One pro-fessor has observed, “When I teach about racism, the tension in the

room is clear. Unlike in other classes, the students are deathly quietand still, glaring, hostile, their pens on their desk. They are tellingme that they are not willing to learn.”8 The many myths and mis-conceptions that are articulated in everyday discourse in the acad-emy on issues related to racism and other forms of discriminationreflect the backlash to efforts by equity-seeking groups to challengeexisting power relations, to incorporate new forms of knowledgeand new pedagogical models, and to alter the institutional cultureof whiteness and male domination. One of the most insidious dis-courses echoing through the halls of academic institutions, forexample, is the taunt of “political correctness.” Those who dare toname and challenge their oppressors are transformed into oppres-sors themselves. Allegations of “reverse racism” then often followon the heels of “political correctness.” And arguments using suchlanguage as “accountability,” “maintaining standards,” and “pre-serving meritocracy” are also employed as rationales for notaddressing critical questions such as: Who controls learning andteaching in the academy? How long do racialized academics haveto wait for substantive equality to be achieved? How well are ouruniversities preparing students to live and work in a raciallydiverse, culturally pluralistic society?

The experiences of racialized students, faculty of colour, andAboriginal academics across this country reflect the failure ofadministrative policies, programs, and everyday practices toaddress racism, to create a more equitable learning and workingenvironment and, above all, to vigorously challenge the “cultureof whiteness” still so dominant at most Canadian universities.

Anti-racism models of knowledge production and pedagogy,which emphasize methods and measures to counteract racism andother forms of oppression, have yet to find a place in most universi-ties.9 Despite two decades of scholarship documenting the problemand endless recommendations for addressing inequities within aca-demia, there remains huge resistance to change. In the meantime,the profound impact of systemic discrimination and everyday racismcontinues to mark life for many students and faculty of colour andAboriginals within Canadian academic institutions.

1 See Luther et al., Seen But Not Heard: Aboriginal Women and Women of Colour in theAcademy (Ottawa: CRIAW-ICREF 2001); Razack, S., Looking White People in the Eye: Raceand Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998);Tastsoglou, E., “Mapping the Unknowable: The Challenges and Rewards of Cultural andPedagogical Border Crossings,” in G. Dei and A. Calliste, eds., Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism: A Critical Reader (Halifax: Fernwood), 98-120.2 See Kobayashi, A. 2002. “Now You See Them: How You See Them: Women of Colourin Canadian Academia.” In Ivory Towers Feminist Issues: Selected Papers from the WINSymposia, 2001. Ottawa: Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. pp. 44-54. 3 See Wagner, A., “Unsettling the Academe: Working Through the Challenges of Anti-Racist Pedagogy,” Race, Ethnicity and Education 8 (September 2005): 261-275; Calliste, A.,“Anti-Racist Organizing and Resisting in Academia,” in G. Dei and A. Calliste, eds., Power,Knowledge and Anti-Racism: A Critical Reader (Halifax: Fernwood, 2000), pp 141-160. 4 Kobayashi, A. 2002 op.cit.5 Henry, F., Systemic Racism Towards Faculty of Colour and Aboriginal Faculty (Queen’sUniversity, 2003).6 Monture-Angus, P. “In the Way of Peace: Confronting Whiteness in the University,” inLuther, R. et al, eds, 2nd edition. Seen But Not Heard: Aboriginal Women and Women ofColour in the Academy (Ottawa: CRIAW-ICREF, 2003), pp.81-90. 7 See, for example, Ng, R., “Teaching Against the Grain: Contradictions and Possibilities,”in R. Ng, P. Staton, and J. Scane, Anti-Racism, Feminism and Critical Approaches to Education(Toronto: OISE Press Critical Studies in Educations and Culture Series, 1995).8 Dua, E. and B. Lawrence. 2000. “Challenging White Hegemony in University Classrooms:Whose Canada is It?” Atlantis 24(2), pp.105-122.9 Dei, G. and A. Calliste. eds., Power, Knowledge, and Anti-Racism Education: A CriticalReader. Halifax: Fernwood, 2000).


Frances Henry is a professor emerita at York University. Carol Tator teaches atYork University.

AAMM


JJudging from the reported high univer-sity attainments of Canadian-born“visible minorities,” one might

assume that such students are doing wellin Canadian higher education. However,when we look more closely, some unset-tling aspects appear. Although rates ofuniversity attendance and completion forminorities are high overall, high rates forsome groups, such as Chinese, are offset bysignificantly lower rates for other groups,including blacks and Latin Americans.Further, the representation of racialminorities on university faculties remainslow, and educational researchers reportinstances of racial bias on many campuses.That universities have recognized a prob-lem is evident in their appointment of“race relations” officials. Thus, rosy gener-alizations could hide less positive experi-ences for some minority students. Whilethe situation merits attention, however,we have very little information to go on.

In the absence of detailed informationfor Canada, it may be helpful to considera study of minorities in American univer-sities by Douglas S. Massey and three colleagues, based on the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Freshmen con-ducted in 1999 and 2000. Massey is a well-recognized authority on the topic of racein America. His work on the impact ofracial segregation in American cities isdefinitive. He is sought after for his adviceat the highest levels of government. Astudy by Massey on racial minorities inhigher education is worth reading.

Some might say that the U.S. experi-ence in race relations (in education or anyother sphere) is not relevant in Canada,pointing to our different history and ourmulticultural traditions and policies. Butsuch arguments are based on national priderather than comparative research, and theprevailing rhetoric on Canadian-American

difference in the reception of immigrantsdoes not stand up well in the face of socialscience evidence. That the United Statesand Canada may not be creating dramati-cally contrasting settings for minorities issometimes a difficult pill for Canadians toswallow, a difficulty experienced first-handby Massey: in the University of Toronto’sannual S.D. Clark lecture, he put forwardthe relevance of American race-relationsexperience for Canada, suggesting that,based on American experience, race rela-tions in Canada will emerge as a more seri-ous problem over time. Although he metwith a great deal of criticism from hisCanadian audience, this criticism wasquickly quieted, with recurring news of vio-lence in relations between police and theblack community and the arrests of terroristsuspects in Canada.

Moreover, some of Massey’s findings forU.S. universities reflect what is known to betrue in Canada. For example, in both coun-tries, Asian university students experiencehigh success rates, while black students doless well. Although most of the blacks in theUnited States are members of long-estab-lished communities, about one-quarter ofthe black university students in Massey’sstudy are the children of immigrants. Giventhis, what can Massey can tell us about thereasons for these group differences?

The National Longitudinal Survey ofFreshmen focuses on students in certainAmerican colleges that have made majorefforts to recruit the best minority students.This is not a random sample; rather it istargeted to include an historically blackcollege (Howard University), institutionswith substantial black student populations(Berkeley, Penn State), those with someblacks, (Yale, Tufts), and those with rela-tively few (Smith College, Bryn Mawr). Itcomprises nearly 4,000 interviews, in Fall1999 and Spring 2000, upon students’

The Source of the River: TheSocial Origins of Freshman atAmerica’s Selective Collegesand Universities by Douglas S.Massey, Camille Z. Charles,Garvey F. Lundy, and Mary J.Fischer, (Princeton UniversityPress, 2006, paperback), 283 pp.

RReevviieewweedd bbyy JJeeffffrreeyy GG.. RReeiittzz

Minorityachievement andthe university

R E A D I N G M AT T E R S ]

AAMM

JJeeffffrreeyy GG.. RReeiittzz iiss RR..FF.. HHaarrnneeyy PPrrooffeessssoorr ooffEEtthhnniicc,, IImmmmiiggrraattiioonn,, aanndd PPlluurraalliissmm SSttuuddiieess aatttthhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TToorroonnttoo..

entry, and at the end of their first year. Although the sample consists of aca-

demically-successful students, Masseypoints out differences in socio-demographiccomposition. Whites and Asians are fromrelatively privileged backgrounds; blacksand Latin Americans from more diversebackgrounds. For blacks, the sex ratio ismore heavily skewed toward women, andthe implications on the social lives of blackfemale students are explored. Families ofstudents in the four groups differ in house-hold composition and in attitudes towardsauthority and discipline. Neighbourhoodcontexts and high school experiences differ,as does academic preparation.

The study includes an analysis of aca-demic performance—reflected in grades,failing a course, or dropping a course.Whites and Asians are more successful,Latin Americans and blacks less so. Analysisshows that all the background factors makea difference. What is perhaps most interest-ing is Massey’s attempt to test certain social-psychological hypotheses about minorityunderachievement. One view suggests anallegedly “adversarial culture” amongblacks, by which academic success is seen as“acting white,” a betrayal of group identity.Another is what the authors call “stereotypevulnerability,” which involves a disengage-ment from academic work out of a fear ofliving up to negative group stereotypes. Thestudy finds more support for the latterhypothesis than the former.

Whether the experiences of minoritiesin Canadian institutions differ is a subjectone hopes can be examined soon. When itis undertaken, such a study will be greatlyinfluenced by Massey’s work.


II teach a graduate course on “Toward anintegrated approach in higher educa-tion.” I also write on equity in educa-

tion, focusing on how racism, sexism, andother forms of marginalization operate inthe academy. I decided to read these twobooks, which have little in common, in aself-serving way, to see whether I can adoptthem for my course. I have been unable toidentify a core text for it since I began offer-ing it in 2002. I am looking for a text ormaterial that addresses the multi-faceteddimension of equity in the context of cor-poratized post-secondary education. Howdo we level the playing field in faculty, staff,and student recruitment, in research, and inthe classroom when the overall trend is tocreate more distinction and hierarchy inthese institutions? How do gender, race,class, and other dominant-subordinate rela-tions play out in various spaces and settings?How do we disrupt taken-for-granted waysof conducting business in these institutions?How do we address various forms of discrimination and marginalization in aholistic manner philosophically and practi-cally? These are amongst the questions Ilook at in the course.

Although I find the two books inter-esting and informative in some ways, I didnot find answers to my questions. DebatingAffirmative Action is a collection of 11journal articles reprinted from the BritishJournal of Law and Society. The collectiondeals with legal and philosophical debatesaround affirmative action, a term that haslargely been replaced by the concept ofequity (e.g., employment equity) inCanada. Although it purports to be com-parative, the focus is on making a case for

affirmative action in Britain. Four of the11 articles do look at situations in Europe,Canada, and the United States.

The lead article by the editors sets theframe for the collection. It defines the termscommonly used to promote the notion ofequality and provides a brief overview ofthe history of affirmative action in Britain.The core of the chapter outlines threemajor approaches to affirmative action:reverse discrimination and compensatoryjustice; non-discrimination and distributivejustice; and preferential treatment andsocial utility. This distinction is useful,since, as the authors point out, there hasnot been a consensus regarding the mostappropriate way of redressing inequality.Many of the articles look at affirmativeaction in terms of employment; genderissues dominate the discussions.

I am most interested in the two articlesthat deal with higher education. The arti-cle by Lois Billings describes differentapproaches to widen participation, specifi-cally student admission, for under-repre-sented groups in Britain. She concludesthat the measures she examined did notresult in affirmative action. AndrewFrancis and Iain McDonald look at barri-ers restricting the participation of disad-vantaged groups as part-time law studentsin Britain. These pieces add to the muchneeded literature on recruiting minoritystudents on campus.

JoAnn Moody’s book deals specificallywith diversity amongst faculty in highereducation. Her focus is on “minoritygroups” versus majority groups, and on theadvantages and disadvantages of beingminority faculty. The book has three parts.

The first part looks at the problems ofmajority-minority relations; the second partlooks at solutions, with concrete discussionsof what to do. The final part she titles“items for discussion, analysis and practice.”While this book contains some interestingquotes based on interviews and concretemeasures, which the author identifies asgood practices and bad practices, I foundthe lack of a clearly articulated theoreticalframework and the prose, some of which iswritten in point form, distressing in a schol-arly text. I am also concerned about herdefinitive approach to understanding whator who constitutes a minority. For instance,the author states in the conclusion ofChapter 3: “Colonized minorities in theUnited States include African Americans,Native Hawaiians...” What about those notincluded in this list? Are they not colo-nized? Such an approach tends to map peo-ple onto the analyst’s classification scheme,rather than looking at the processes where-by certain groups of people are minoritizedunder specific situations.

In the end, I went back to the text that Iused last year—Marilee Reimer’s collectionentitled Inside the Corporate U: Women in theAcademy Speak Out (Sumach Press,2004)—and supplemented it with articlesfrom a variety of other sources. I am disap-pointed that I can’t find a single text for mypurpose. A book that provides a holistic andencompassing approach to equity in highereducation remains to be written.

Debating Affirmative Action:Conceptual, Contenxtual andComparative Perspectivesedited by Aileen McHargand Donald Nicolson(Blackwell 2006), 192 pp.;Faculty Diversity: Problemsand Solutions by JoAnnMoody (RoutledgeFalmer2004), 264 pp.

RReevviieewweedd bbyy RRooxxaannaa NNggR E A D I N G M AT T E R S ]

AAMM

RRooxxaannaa NNgg iiss aa pprrooffeessssoorr aatt tthhee OOnnttaarriiooIInnssttiittuuttee ffoorr SSttuuddiieess iinn EEdduuccaattiioonn aatt tthheeUUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TToorroonnttoo..

Searching forthe holistictext on equityin higher education


In Troubling Women’s Studies, AnnBraithwaite, Susan Heald, SusanneLuhmann, and Sharon Rosenberg,

drawing on responses from other feministintellectuals, converse, somewhat anx-iously, about “the current ambivalentmood” in women’s studies, a field they say“appears deeply troubled.” But despitetheir “often uneasy attachments to thisfield,” they “all continue to believe inWomen’s Studies as a “vitally necessary”intellectual project.” Lehman argues thatambivalence is not a “mark of loss.”Rather it is “a strategy of preservation, forit allows one to maintain a love for thefield and to be critical at the same time.”

Where Troubling Women’s Studiesfocuses on women’s studies as an intellec-tual project, Out of the Ivory Tower, editedby Andrea Martinez and Meryn Stuart,focusses on women’s studies in action.Martinez and Stuart’s goal was to consoli-date feminist research at the University ofOttawa and promote the dissemination offeminist knowledge to a wider audience,with the hope of bridging the gap betweenthe academy and the broader feministcommunity. Tina O’Toole’s “Moving intothe Spaces,” which points to the impor-tance of history as a basis for lesbianactivism, Michelle Mullen’s “FeministBioethics and Empirical research,” whichargues that “a concern with the (mal)dis-tribution of power and opportunity withinsociety is central to a feminist bioethics,”Carol Andrew’s “Women in the UrbanLandscape,” which looks at gender as aconstitutive element in the analysis of

Canadian urban space, and many otheressays in this collection make clear the rel-evance of feminist research to women’spolitical and social activism.

Curious about the degree and extent towhich racism, classism, and sexism com-bine to creates barriers for the blackwoman faculty member when it comes toachieving tenure, Tuesday L. Cooperinterviewed African American womenengaged in the tenure process in Americanacademe. In The Sista’ Network, relying ona qualitative, not quantitative, methodol-ogy, she presents the voices of thesewomen as a roundtable conversation.Cooper employed “imperfect narrative,” afictional format partly because so much lit-erature about black women faculty, shewrites, does not use their own words ortheir own narratives to interpret theirexperiences and party because fiction issometimes the best way to convey certaintruths. One of the truths conveyed in TheSista’ Network is that black women, withso few role models, are at a disadvantagewhen it comes to knowing the rules of thegame that is tenure. One participantdescribes this as a new, covert racism: “Wetreat everybody the same but if I am not inthe informal network where information istransmitted, then I don’t know and I amnot told. And those in power...don’t per-ceive that as deliberate racism....They justsay, ‘that is how the system works’.”Another truth is that in the Sista’Network, the relationships between andamong professional African-Americanwomen that enable them to assist one

another in learning the unwritten rulesand protocols of various professions canhelp these women to negotiate the oftenlonely and treacherous road to tenure.

Carrie Yang Costello’s ProfessionalIdentity Crisis deals with issues of discrimi-nation within the academy. Costello spentmore than 400 hours observing and inter-viewing first-year students at the BoaltSchool of Law and the School of SocialWelfare at UC Berkeley, in an effort todetermine why white males from class-privileged backgrounds do so much betterthan “nontraditional” students, such aswomen and people of colour, at profession-al schools. She determinesd that neitherinappropriate affirmative action nor a con-spiracy to discriminate explains the bettergrades and career outcomes of the class-privileged white men. What does explainit is that discrimination, like the racismCooper analyses in The Sista’ Network, iscovert. To be successful as professionals,“students must internalize an appropriateprofessional identity,” argues Costello, andthe “appropriate” professional identity atprofessional schools is unmistakably maleand WASP. The result is a jarring disso-nance, which “distracts” such studentsfrom “focusing on their studies.”

These works demonstrate that evenafter 40 years of feminist activity, bothwithin and without the academy, women’sequality in the university is far fromachieved—or assured.

Troubling Women’s Studies: Pasts, Presents and Possibilities, by Ann Braithwaite,Susan Heald, Susanne Luhmann, and SharonRosenberg (Sumach Press, 2004) 258 pp.;Out of the Ivory Tower: Feminist Research for Social Change, edited by Andrea Martinezand Meryn Stuart (Sumach Press, 2003) 312pp.;The Sista’ Network: African- AmericanWomen Faculty Successfully Negotiating the Road to Tenure, by Tuesday L. Cooper(Anker Publishing Company, 2006) 147 pp.;Professional Identity Crisis: Race, Class,Gender, and Success at Professional Schools,by Carrie Yang Costello (Vanderbilt UniversityPress, 2005) 264 pp.

RReevviieewweedd bbyy LLiinnddaa BBuurrnneettttR E A D I N G M AT T E R S ]

AAMM

LLiinnddaa BBuurrnneetttt iiss cchhaaiirr ooff EEnngglliisshh aanndd FFiinneeAArrttss aatt AAllggoommaa UUnniivveerrssiittyy CCoolllleeggee..

Women’s equity and the academy


What does public higher educa-tion mean in an age where uni-versity education is increasingly

described as a private benefit? How do weunderstand the “public” role of universitiesin an era of privatization and marketization?

In their recent book The True Genius ofAmerica at Risk, Katharine Lyall andKathleen Sell provide a very thoughtful,well-written account of policy trends with-in the context of American federalism thatcombine to create what they regard as the“perfect storm” confronting the public uni-versity sector in the United States. Byfocusing attention on higher educationpolicy at the state level, they show howchanges in federal-state fiscal arrangementscombined with state-level tax reductionsand increasing program entitlements com-bined to squeeze state resources and createa decade-long period of retrenchment inuniversity funding. It all sounds remarkablyfamiliar to this Canadian reader.

The authors identify these problematictrends in the first two chapters, but thecore of the book focuses on the possibili-ties and failures associated with policyexperiments that have emerged in anattempt to turn the tide.

This review of state initiatives providesCanadian readers with a cogent reminderof how very different the American highereducation policy environment is.Government grants in Colorado are limit-ed under the taxpayer bill of rights, so uni-versities have been awarded “enterprise”status and new funds are channeledthrough fee-for-service contracts. In anumber of states publicly supported institu-tions, including universities, are subjectedto draconian government administrativeand procurement procedures that severelylimit institutional autonomy, and privatiza-tion is increasingly viewed as a mechanismfor avoiding state bureaucracy.

In many respects Lyall and Sell are nottrying to solve the problem; they are advo-cating approaches to living within whatthey view as a new reality, includingredefining state institutions as public pur-pose universities. Under this model, insti-tutions become defined by their publicmission rather than assumptions of publicownership. Their new model is neitherrevolutionary nor visionary, in fact “publicpurpose” seems to be synonymous withhigh accessibility and low aspirations.

In his recent book, Our UnderachievingColleges, Derek Bok argues that Americanuniversities are doing a good job but thatthey could be doing better. While Lyalland Sell focus on state-level policy, Bokconcentrates on the relationship betweenwhat he views as the core objectives ofhigher education and the undergraduatecurriculum. For Bok, universities have apublic purpose regardless of their fundingsource or legal status.

The book begins with three introductorychapters that review the evolution of theundergraduate curriculum, discuss facultyattitudes towards undergraduate education,and articulate what Bok believes are theobjectives of a university education. Thenext eight chapters review research findingsand offer suggestions on how to improve stu-dent learning related to these objectives,including chapters on learning to communi-cate, building character, preparing for citi-zenship, living with diversity, and preparingfor a global society.

In many respects the book provides asolid introduction to some key issues asso-

The True Genius of Americaat Risk: Are We Losing OurPublic Universities to DeFacto Privatization? ByKatharine C. Lyall andKathleen R. Sell (Westport,CT: American Council onEducation/ Praeger, 2006),232 pp., and Our Under-achieving Colleges: ACandid Look at How MuchStudents Learn and Why

They Should be Learning More byDerek Bok (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2006), 424 pp.

RReevviieewweedd bbyy GGlleenn AA.. JJoonneess

Reasserting a public mission

R E A D I N G M AT T E R S ]

AAMM

GGlleenn AA.. JJoonneess iiss aa pprrooffeessssoorr ooff hhiigghheerr eedduuccaa--ttiioonn aanndd aassssoocciiaattee ddeeaann,, aaccaaddeemmiicc,, aatt tthheeOOnnttaarriioo IInnssttiittuuttee ffoorr SSttuuddiieess iinn EEdduuccaattiioonn aatttthhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TToorroonnttoo..

ciated with curriculum reform, and Bokdoes a very good job at demonstrating howthe research literature on teaching andlearning in higher education can informinstitutional goals and practices. I foundthe journey stimulating and thought-pro-voking, even though I sometimes dis-agreed with both the appropriateness ofthe destination and the directions Bokprovided to get there.

Both books focus attention on the pub-lic purpose of the university, but, takentogether, they also serve to illuminate thediscordance in how this issue is taken upat different levels of the higher educationsystem. Lyall and Sell have a great deal tosay about state-level higher education pol-icy, but these debates seem to be almostentirely devoid of references to educationprocesses or student learning. Their “pub-lic” university appears to be defined pri-marily in terms of its responsiveness tostate interests in student access, localemployment, and economic development.

In contrast, Bok believes that a “pub-lic” mission is fundamental to universityeducation. He believes that the quality ofthe educational experience is enhancedwhen universities activity engage in seri-ous, ongoing, internal review and apprais-al, activities that may actually be stifled bystate accountability requirements or per-formance indicators.


H U M O U R M AT T E R S ]

Iknew I was in trouble when my daugh-ter’s third word was “manuscript.”Well, it sort of came out like “ban-u-

mip,” and she might have meant “changeme” or “give me cheese,” but it soundedlike manuscript to me. A child psycholo-gist would probably tell me that what Ihear in infant babble reflects my state ofmind: my kids could say “blahflem” and Iwould hear, “I love you, daddy. You are myfather, my font of affection, my flower inthe meadow that wilts not, even in win-ter.” But sad to say, while Mira lay nakedon the living room floor, giggling away andreaching up to grab my nose, forming hertiny mouth into another of her earliestsounds, I was thinking about footnotes.

This is only one of my many paternalfailures. But until that point, I trulybelieved that I was striking a good balancebetween home and work. This isn’t the1950s. Twenty-first century universities goout of their way to advertise their commit-ment to helping smooth out work-familyconflict: family resource centres have beenopened, useful seminars are offered, copi-ous warnings about balance are deliveredat new faculty orientations, and older col-leagues kindly remind us new scholars thatacademia is only one part of a life lived.

But as a parent-professor, I have learnedtwo incontrovertable truths. Incontravert-ible Truth Number One: the best thingabout an academic job is the flexible hours.As long as I put in extra hours at night (as Iwrite this column, it’s almost 1 AM), I havethe daytime luxury of picking my kids upfrom daycare and school, giving them din-ner and baths, and even putting them tobed. When I was growing up, my mother(the family breadwinner) had a long com-mute to a job with inflexible hours, so Iknow I am really blessed.

Incontravertible Truth Number Two: theworst thing about an academic job is theflexible hours. As I discovered on the livingroom carpet, teaching and research can justkeep going and going. Work-family “bal-ance” implies separation, a weighing of twodistinct spheres, but in my brain, no suchdistinction exists. Even with my hand in thediaper pail, I’m revising that crappy lectureand writing that unfinished manuscript.Since nobody wants to hear about footnotesover dinner, being a parent-academic is thebest way to drive everyone around you nuts.

Maybe when she’s 25 and in multipleforms of therapy, my daughter will takecomfort in the fact that the complete col-

lapse of my work-life balance worked bothways. While I brought university affairshome in my mental briefcase every night,I was also dragging a virtual diaper pailinto class. At one point last year, after aparticularly lame lecture on economicdevelopment in the 1920s, a studentapproached the front of the lecture hall.

Student: Professor Penfold, do you knowthat you have an apple sticker on your belt?

Me, looking down: Oh, I guess I do...

Student: ‘Cause, like, it’s been there forabout two months...

Me, looking up: Has it really?

Student: I just thought you’d like to know.

I did want to know, but can you imaginehow bored a student has to be to look upfrom computer solitaire to notice an applesticker on your belt? I realize that mostundergraduates are not excited by discus-sions of pulp and paper and continental-ism, but has anyone before me achievedthis astounding level of incoherence?

Well, back on the living room floor, mydaughter said “lep-noo” and it got me

SStteevvee PPeennffoolldd iiss Academic Matters’’ hhuummoouurrccoolluummnniisstt.. HHee mmoooonnlliigghhttss aass aann aassssiissttaanntt pprroo--ffeessssoorr ooff hhiissttoorryy aatt tthhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TToorroonnttoo..

Mental briefcases and virtual diaper pails:

work-life balance revealed

thinking about that lecture, work-life bal-ance, and broader issues of equity. I readsomewhere that every night of fewer thansix hours sleep has the same effect as lower-ing your IQ one point. Since I’m well intodeficit financing on that score, I realizedthat we all missed the boat on that manda-tory retirement debate. Abolish it? No way:how about extending it to the young andexhausted. I mean, U of T would be betteroff letting octogenarian professors teachuntil they die and instituting mandatoryretirement—say, five years worth—forsleep-deprived 40-year-olds who can’t tellfootnotes from diapers. Can anyone ima-gine that an accomplished senior citizencould be less pedagogically effective thanan assistant professor who doesn’t realize hehas an apple sticker on his belt?

Human Resources Canada defineswork-life balance as a “state of well being… that allows [a person] to manage effec-tively multiple responsibilities at work, athome, and in their community… withoutgrief, stress or negative impact.” Soundslike a utopian dream, but maybe that’swhat Mira meant by “ban-u-mip.” AAMM


The issue of equity on universitycampuses raises a number of criti-cal questions. How is it to be

defined? What are the goals and objec-tives? And how is it to be achieved? Therecord of equity in academe, as elsewhere,has shown that there have been no simpleanswers to those questions.

Certainly, there have been advance-ments over the past four decades. Womennow represent more than half of universitystudents in Canada, and the percentage offull-time faculty who are women hasalmost tripled since the 1960s. Yet, asnoted in this issue, women faculty and stu-dents are still concentrated in feminizeddisciplines of study, overrepresented ascontingent faculty, and underrepresentedas full professors and senior administrators.

Similarly, universities are more raciallyand ethnically diverse compared to thepast. That diversity is more evident in thestudent body than in the professoriate, par-ticularly on major urban campuses, and isconcentrated in certain disciplines of study.There is also in general an underrepresen-tation of faculty of colour and Aboriginalfaculty, as there is faculty and students whocome from lower-income families.

Equity, however, goes beyond the issueof representation, and more diversity isnot necessarily synonymous with greaterequity. The scope of equity concernsembrace university policies, processes andculture regarding hiring, promotion, cur-ricula, academic freedom, and the deter-mination of academic validity, merit, andstandards, among other considerations.

These have frequently been emotionallycharged issues—all the more so since theissue of equity speaks to the personal andprofessional identities of faculty—to gender,

race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, dis-ability, and to notions of what it is to be anacademic in the contemporary university.

To raise concerns about equity and pro-pose changes to the established order of theuniversity world can be profoundly unset-tling. It is not surprising that the propo-nents of change and all those affected oftenspeak in voices that reflect frustration andanger—with the slow pace of substantivechange, with the challenge to what isdeemed worthy, with the insensitivity todeeply-held beliefs and perceptions.

Meaningful engagement on equityissues in the university community has notbeen easy.

Yet, the achievement of greater equitycannot be enduring without empathy for

those striving for equity and a generalunderstanding of why greater equity is nec-essary. Nor can it be enduring if those ques-tioning equity initiatives are not understoodand their resistance effectively addressed.

Employment equity, affirmative action,and other equity initiatives have a shortlifespan when such understanding andempathy are limited. It then becomesmuch easier to cast such policies as “reversediscrimination,” “unfair advantage” or “thelowering of standards.” In this, as in manydevelopments, the United States is the har-binger of worrisome trends. Constitutionalamendments in four states now preventpublic universities from giving preferencesto applicants or contractors based on race.Voters in Michigan approved such a ban bya substantial margin last fall, despite evi-dence that the number of visible minoritystudents enrolled in public universitiesdrops significantly when limitations onaffirmative action are approved.

Historically, there has always beenresistance to equity initiatives. Their suc-cess has depended on a critical mass of sup-port—or at least acceptance once they arein place. Policies without that critical sup-port and understanding, that are seen assimply imposed, have a tenuous existence.Policies with that critical approval andunderstanding have greater prospects ofexpanding support.

The struggle for equity is a “contestedterrain.” With sensitivity and understand-ing, however, it can also become the poli-tics of the possible.

Mark Rosenfeld

Grappling with Equity

EQUITY POLICIES

WITHOUT

CRITICAL

SUPPORT AND

UNDERSTANDING

HAVE A

TENUOUS

EXISTENCE

E D I T O R I A L M AT T E R S ]

AAMM

Mark Rosenfeld is editor-in-chief ofAcademic Matters and associate executivedirector of OCUFA.

download this issue in pdf format - Academic Matters

Documents

Transcript of download this issue in pdf format - Academic Matters