Vol. 24, No. 3 November 1, 2011 “What’s in the Water: Gender, Salary and Equity?”
By Catherine Carter
Associate Professor and Director, English Education
On September 21, 2011, the WCU branch of the Tar Heels Chapter of the Association of American
University Women met to discuss the issue of possible gender-based salary inequities at WCU. This
issue was raised by the WCU branch—AAUW Catamount, if you like—last spring, and Dr. Henry
Wong, Director of Equal Opportunity Employment, addressed the association on this topic.
At that meeting, Dr. Wong reviewed the information which appeared in his May 2011 Faculty Forum
piece entitled Conducting A Salary Analysis; he spoke generally about the issues involved in such a
study rather than presenting any specific data from WCU. I speak for no one other than myself in the
following summary.
Dr. Wong emphasized repeatedly the need for comparators, who were indeed comparable in these
areas, the need to “compare apples to apples”. He also listed numerous factors which must be
controlled for before inequity could be determined, including such apparently non-discriminatory
factors as men with higher salaries having better qualifications, higher-demand fields, better
performance ratings, more responsibilities, more full-time positions, higher ranks, more seniority
(longer tenure), and different program classifications, than their female counterparts. That is, merely
noting that mean salaries for female WCU faculty were lower for every academic ranking in the 2005
Fact Book (no subsequent Fact Books contain data on faculty salary), would not suffice; a more
complex analysis must be conducted. It sounded as though alternative factors must be fully
accounted for before gender-based salary inequity could be determined, and that in the absence of
absolute proof to the contrary, gender inequity could not be acknowledged. This overview of research
methodology and statistics was presented to a group of women, the majority of whom hold doctoral
degrees in fields requiring advanced research methodology and statistical analysis (both quantitative
and qualitative).
When asked whether WCU could or would begin such an analysis, Dr. Wong referred the question to
Dianne Lynch, Chief of Staff, also present. Dianne Lynch noted that such an analysis had last been
undertaken in 1995 [I believe that it did find inequity], that it had taken eight months of dedicated
effort, that it would probably take twelve to eighteen months now, that Melissa Wargo (Director of
Assessment) would probably have to compile it, but that Dr. Wargo was already heavily burdened
with strategic planning, that the necessary data were not assembled in any one location, and that, in
short, while a study is desirable, this was a bad time to consider an analysis. After discussion, a
process for faculty requesting such an analysis was outlined, but no one could say if such a request
might be approved.
1 Forgive the lengthy buildup: what I’m getting at here was that administrative response to the
possibility of gender-based salary inequities at Western Carolina University appeared to me to be
cautious, defensive, and focused upon reasons not to investigate. And I’d like to address that
response—in a spirit of collegiality and amity which, if absent from this first discussion, can still
come to flower in future discussions.
It’s natural that the specter of salary inequities makes universities blanch; possible outcomes of an
investigation include redressing any inequities found (in this case, during hard budgetary times);
potential legal actions against the university or its officers; and bad press for the institution in general.
Caution is clearly called for.
To address this caution, though, we must remember the nature of privilege. In any situation in which
one group has historically enjoyed sometimes-invisible advantages over another, privilege for the
traditionally dominant group is what happens by default. It is what “just happens” in the absence of
conscious, consistent effort to redress it. A suggestion of inequity does not imply the accusation that
some man or men have plotted to create or sustain gender-based salary inequities. Even if a man or
men did want to plot against salary equity, they certainly wouldn’t need to: it would “just happen.”
Inequity is in the water, as they say, and it is promulgated less by any conscious effort than by the
status quo itself. Inequitable privilege manifests itself in traditionally higher pay for traditionally
male fields (at non-union institutions); in the high financial price women pay for their
disproportionate childcare and domestic responsibilities; in the useful contacts men make on golf
courses and in other areas where women are scarce; in both men and women consciously or
unconsciously considering women less qualified than men with the same qualifications; in a hundred
other ways. No one has to make it happen; it’s simply the often-invisible norm.
Thus, if I were to allege that, say, my salary suffered from gender-based inequities, and request an
investigation (which any faculty member may formally do, according to Dr. Wong’s Faculty Forum
piece), it would not be in a vengeful spirit of J’accuse! My allegation would not be that my
immediate supervisor or anyone else had malevolently applied gender bias to my contract. Rather, it
would be that cultural patterns of patriarchal privilege applied here as anywhere: that WCU has
drunk the same water as the rest of the country. It would be based on the fact that while contaminated
water can remain toxic for generations, WCU has a chance—and perhaps a moral obligation—to test
our well water, and to filter it if it tastes of bias. The allegation might be based on the fact that
gender-based salary inequity is the norm in the U.S., not the exception (in 2009, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau, full-time year-round female wage earners still earned 23% less than their male
counterparts—based on medians, and not taking into account the factors Dr. Wong mentioned.)
However, according to a 2010 report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, even when
such factors are accounted for, there are “always” unexplained gaps, and this committee attributed
these smaller but still significant gaps to gender bias. I don’t expect WCU to have been an exception
to this rule; I don’t blame it for not having been one; resisting such a trend would have taken a
conscious and rare commitment to doing better than the rest of the country. But I do believe this is
the time to see whether WCU is an exception or not.
My belief is that WCU wants to be an exception, and that our administration understands such
inequities are not only unjust, and unbecoming to a state institution, but also are bad for the institution
itself, beyond any possible financial ramifications. However, that belief can be difficult to maintain
when a group raising these issues is met with a response which could easily be read as it will take too
much time, it will use too many resources, it will be harder than you think, and we’d rather not do it.
If this were WCU’s position on an investigation into possible gender-related salary inequity, I would
argue that such a response was shortsighted. In fact, it would be the response most likely to
2 precipitate the results I mentioned above. Given my faith in WCU’s commitment to justice, however,
I don’t read the initial administrative response as stalling, stonewalling, or resisting; I take it as,
rather, a brief pause on the part of an administration as yet unsure what’s coming on a very sensitive
matter.
If that’s so, though, I have a suggestion. After pause for thought, an appropriate, long-sighted
response (one which puts no liability upon, and poses no peril to, the University) might be more like
actually, we know that institutional gender-based salary inequities are still very common in most
systems. We acknowledge that they certainly could be present in our system, a holdover from less
progressive days, though no one wants that. We’re open to talking about how we could find out, and
we’d welcome your input and assistance as we think about this and evolve a plan that won’t unduly
burden our personnel in a busy time.
This could be the response of an institution which, rather than reacting to the paralyzing fear of bad
press, is proactive in dealing with causes for bad press. In a room including mathematics professors,
statisticians, and quantitative researchers, a review of statistical methods need not be the focus of
discussion. The issue is not whether the question of inequity should be asked, but how it can best be
answered.
If this is a time of challenges for WCU—and it is—it’s a time of opportunity too. We at WCU have
the chance to recreate ourselves for the 21st century: to shine light on normal bias and inequity, rather
than hoping they’ll stay decently hidden. We have the chance to reward women’s contributions as we
do men’s, and term faculty’s as we do tenure-track faculty’s (especially considering that non-tenure
track faculty tend to be female. A recent AAUP paper drawing on multiple studies indicated that
women were disproportionately represented in term and part-time positions, but that in tenure-track
and tenured positions men predominated, the more so as academic rank increased; only 28% of full
professors were found to be female. Salary gaps favoring male academics at all ranks were also the
norm.) We have the chance to balance ill-distributed loads across genders, races, departments, and
colleges. Most importantly, we have the chance to show our students that when we teach them to ask
the hard questions, we walk the walk.
I encourage all faculty, staff, and administration to discuss equity issues openly, to work together in
illuminating them, and to recognize that acknowledging inequity is not an admission of personal or
institutional guilt (or liability), but a chance to fulfill our real responsibility: to make Western
Carolina University the just and transparent University which I hope we all want.
__________
Coulter Faculty Commons for Teaching and Learning
Responses to our October 2011 Faculty Forum article
entitled
A Culture of Silence, Revisited
By Mary Jean Ronan Herzog
Professor, School of Teaching & Learning
3 Anonymous: I would like to make an ANONYMOUS comment related to Mary Jean Herzog’s excellent
essay. I know there were responses earlier in the week, but I’ve only just had time to read it. I am one of the
untenured….and I’ve been afraid to speak up. Last semester when we were asked to evaluate our department
heads, I emailed back that I was afraid to. Is there another way for me to give you this feedback, I asked? The
response was “No. But it shouldn’t be a problem as long as you don’t mention specifics.” Well…sometimes the
specifics matter. I was afraid, and I didn’t speak up. Is anybody else out there...?
Thanks.
Jayne Zanglein
Looking forward to it. Glad to have the heads up!
Enrique Gomez
Cheers to Mary Jean for bringing the focus back to academic freedom! The quote from Ginsberg about the
budget crisis reminds me of the "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, where small pressure groups can take
advantage of the disorientation triggered by a crisis (i.e. Katrina, The Iraq War, The 2008 financial crisis) to
advance a set of policies that various consistencies would otherwise oppose. Now, is this what is going on at
WCU? Let's just say that, for the sake of argument, that administration is acting in good faith as allies of the
faculty. That alone wouldn't prevent the administration from playing that role of a pressure group. What is
true is that we do have societal pressure groups that want to shape the idea of the University and the role of
faculty, and that externally dictated budget constraints are their instrument. So then the question becomes,
"what is the role of faculty governance in responding to the impact of power centers beyond the University?"
____________
News and Notes from the Faculty Senate
From Erin McNelis, Chair
Faculty Senate Update – October 28, 2011
Faculty Senate began its third meeting of the 2011-2012 academic year on Thursday, October 27. Because of
the volume and significance of the business before the Faculty Senate, this meeting will be continuing to an
overflow meeting on Thursday, November 3 from 3 – 5 p.m. in the UC Multipurpose Room. Note that all
resolutions and materials associated with this meeting can be found under the October 27 meeting listing on
the Faculty Senate Agendas and Minutes website (http://www.wcu.edu/29552.asp).
The Policy on Reorganization of Academic Units drafted by the faculty, staff, and administration on the
Reorganization Task Force chaired by Seán O’Connell was the first item of business for the Faculty Senate last
Thursday. The original draft of this policy was shared with the campus via e-mail on October 10 and the task
force revised this draft based on feedback from the campus community as well as from discussion at the open
forum the group hosted. The policy outlines principles that must guide any reorganization, components
required to be included in any reorganization proposal, and the review process by which proposals for
reorganization would be vetted by the groups affected by the reorganization, at times including the Faculty
Senate. After discussion and debate, the Faculty Senate endorsed this policy (with a 22 – 2 vote) which will
now be forwarded to the Provost for approval as an Academic Procedure and Regulation (APR).
4 As part of the Academic Policy and Review Council’s report, curriculum items were presented for Senate
approval. After a lively period of discussion and debate regarding the issue of degree programs requiring more
than 64 credit hours, the Faculty Senate voted 14 (yes) to 9 (no) to pass the new BS/BA in Sports Management
Program (which was previously just a BS degree and did not include the College of Business Core).
Of the three resolutions being brought to the Faculty Senate from the Collegial Review Council, only the first
was able to be addressed in last week’s meeting: proposed changes in the University Standards for Teaching
Effectiveness (Section 4.04 C.1 in the Faculty Handbook) and the Evaluation of Teaching (4.05 B.1, B.2). In
April 2011, the Faculty Senate created a task force charged with reviewing whether the seven dimensions of
teaching were still an effective means of evaluating teaching. Based on their literature review and work, the
task force recommended WCU base the evaluation of teaching upon three areas: pedagogical content
knowledge, the professional administration of the class (including supervision of students), and student
response to instruction. In essence, these three areas would replace the seven dimensions as criteria for
effective teaching. As is the case now, peer evaluations, self-evaluations and reports, and Student Assessment
Instrument’s (SAI’s) must be included in the sources of data for the evaluation of teaching. Concerns
regarding SAI’s (alignment with proposed criteria for evaluation, reliability, possible weighting) dominated the
Faculty Senate’s lengthy discussion and debate on this resolution. After the question was called, the proposed
changes in University Standards for Teaching Effectiveness and the Evaluation of Teaching passed with a 20
(yes) to 4 (no) vote and the meeting was suspended until the following Thursday.
Business to be addressed in the overflow meeting includes
• clarifying the criteria for early tenure and promotion in Faculty Handbook (Section 4.07 A.3 and A.6);
• adding a collegiality statement to Section 4.04 C of the Faculty Handbook;
• limiting the number of proxies a Faculty Senator can hold;
• accepting a joint statement (with SGA and the Staff Senate) on University Community Responsibilities
and Shared Governance;
• adding the joint statement on University Community Responsibilities and Shared Governance to
Section 4.02 of the Faculty Handbook; and
• providing feedback on the proposed Policy on Diversity from the Council on Diversity and Inclusion.
Any business not completed before 5 p.m. on November 3 will be moved to the Faculty Senate agenda for their
November 30 meeting in Killian 104. Faculty is encouraged to share their concerns and impressions with their
senator or any member of Faculty Senate as well as observe the Faculty Senate meetings first hand.
___________
Editorial Notes
By Vera Holland Guise
Faculty Fellow, Coulter Faculty Commons
They just keep coming and getting better and better, don’t they? We want to extend a special “Thank You!” to
every faculty member who writes these feature articles for The Faculty Forum. And we want to encourage
you to keep those emails and feedback coming! Remember: You can always send your comment to the
article’s author or to me at vguise@wcu.edu and request that it be shared as “anonymous”. You may
comment on this month’s compelling feature article by sending Catherine Carter or me an email or by
accessing the Faculty Forum’s Wiki, then select the article under What’s Hot on the top right. The Wiki
requires you to use your email username and password to access the article. The Faculty Forum is a publication
by and for WCU faculty, but we do invite comments from staff, who are equally important in the pursuit of
excellence here at WCU.
5 To access the article as a PDF, click here.
The direct link to the main Faculty Forum Webpage is here.
To access the Wiki and make a comment online, click here.
As we prepare to celebrate the Silver Anniversary of The Faculty Forum next year, we will be
considering a new masthead design. In the spirit of inclusive involvement from faculty, we welcome
your ideas and thoughts as to a masthead design that reflects the 25 years of writing and publishing
by and for WCU faculty through The Faculty Forum.
6