The Values of Academe: Sexism as a Natural Consequence

The Values of Academe: Sexism as a Natural Consequence Ann Fuehrer and Karen Maitland Schilling Mictmi Urli~'e,.sir~

The status of women in modern American society may be understood by examining cultural values created and transmitted by educational institutions. Examination of the eflectiveness of educational institutions at the individual, organizational, and societal levels reveals a variety of forms of sex discrimination that have profound effects on all women. Although some forms qf discrimination have been declared illegal, other forms continue unchecked. Recent developmental theories of sex differences in the valuing of social relationships and individual achievement help in understanding the nature of sex discrimination in educational institutions. These theories also help to identifv wavs in which such discrimination mav be eliminated.

A review of the rate of participation in educational institutions by sex would suggest that women are increasingly being served by these institutions. Between 1950 and 1982, the proportion of female undergraduates increased from 31 to 52% (Grant & Snyder, 1983). Between 1970 and 1983, the proportion of women receiving doctorates increased from 13 to 33.6% (Grant & Snyder, 1983). Affirmative action programs have produced some changes in the overall representation of women among faculty ranks since the 1960s (22% of faculty in 1960, 33% in 1980, according to Grant & Snyder, 1983). However, if standards other than global participation rates are used to evaluate the functioning of educational institutions, it becomes clear that the needs of men are still more adequately served than the needs of women. Women are still clustered at the lowest rungs of This paper is the result of a collaborative effort by the two authors who contributed equally to its preparation. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Karl L. Schilling for his comments on a draft of this paper. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Ann Fuehrer. Department of Psychology. Miami University. Oxford. OH 45056

29 0(1?2-45371851 I?(ll-MJZY$04.50/ I

(1

lqX5 Thc Socicty lor thc P \ y L h h g c a l Sludy 01 Social I\*UCI

30

Fuehrer and Schilling

the academic ladder. According to a 1982-1983 report from over 2,500 institutions, conducted by the American Association of University Professors, women make up 10.7% of the nation’s full professors, 22% of associate professors, 36.1 % of assistant professors, and 5 I .7% of instructors. And, despite the proliferation of women’s studies programs (over 20.000 courses in 1984 and at least 500 different programs in this country; Stimpson, 1984), questions remain about the impact of such programs. Both in terms of the values that are transmitted and the process by which education occurs, it seems that sex discrimination is being perpetuated. Barnett and Baruch (1978) have suggested that in our society “the inequality in social rewards consistently favors the work men do and the skills and traits associated with their endeavors” (p. vii). According to Graham (1978), American institutions of higher education that have their historical roots in the education of men have changed substantially over recent years, but have not been diverted from their historical commitment to male superiority. She notes that “along with the movement of higher education into the mainstream of American life, its transformation from the domain of few to the domain of many, and the evolution of the research university monolith, there has been an exclusion of women” (p. 759). This paper will integrate theories of organizational functioning with recent developmental perspectives on sex differences in the valuing of social relationships and individual achievement to provide insight into ways in which the institutional structures of academe discriminate against women. Suggestions will be provided for ways in which sex discrimination may be reduced.

Effectiveness of Educational Institutions It is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of an organization’s functioning on at least three levels: the extent to which individual employees benefit, the degree to which an organization meets its goals, and the extent to which an organization enhances the functioning of its immediate suprasystem (Katz & Kahn, 1978).Thus, effective educational institutions would be staffed by faculty who are appropriately compensated, satisfied, and productively engaged in scholarly activity and teaching. Effective colleges and universities would “encourage and enable intentional developmental change throughout the life cycle” for their students (Chickering & Associates, 1981), or preserve, disseminate, and examine eternal truths (Kerr, 1963). Finally, effective educational institutions would make valuable contributions to the quality of life in modern America. At all three levels of organizational functioning various forms of sex discrimination tend to occur, raising serious doubts about the teaching and scholarship in American colleges and universities, and the values of the society that this scholarship helps to create and also reflects.

31

The Values of Academe

Sex Discrimination in Educational Institutions Sex discrimination is any unnecessary practice that has unequal consequences for people of different sex (Ledvinka. 1982). Within educational institutions, conditions traditionally identified as discriminatory include the underrepresentation of women in faculty positions, the awarding of differential salaries to men and women faculty, the unequal funding of men’s and women’s athletic programs, and the sexual harassment of students or faculty. With the passage of Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act and Title 1X of the Educational Amendments of 1972, many of these behaviors have been declared illegal-helping to discourage, but not to eliminate, a number of forms of sex discrimination. These practices are only a limited sample of the behaviors that could be included under Ledvinka’s (1982) definition of sex discrimination. In the rightmost column of Table I are a number of conditions that have resulted in discrimination against women. Although these conditions have not been regulated. their impact is serious.

Regulated Forms of Sex Discriniination Federal regulation has attempted to eliminate sex discrimination in educational institutions at individual and organizational levels of functioning. Table I . Examples of Forms of Sex Discrimination Level of functioning Individual

Organizational

Societal

Regulated forms Underrepresentation of women within an organizational unit Unequal pay Sexual harassment of faculty Unequal athletic funding Sexual harassment of students

Unregulated forms Stress of poor personienvironmcnt fit

Chilly climate for women in classroom and laboratory Differential advocacy for admission of graduate students Limited (masculinized) education Knowledge base uninfluenced by wonien’s values Acceptance of “masculine” as normative Labeling of women’s experience as deviant

i’lt is more accurate to view this currently as an empty cell. identifying no clear examples of regulation of educational institutions to ensure that their contributions to the society are nondiscriminatory. Although it is difficult to document, it is possible that in the review of research proposals for grant assistance required assurances for use of human suh-jects have occasionally resulted in the elimination of potentially discriminatory scholarly contributions.

32

Fuehrer and Schilling

Inciividuul Level

The quality of working life of faculty members has been addressed through federal regulation prohibiting conditions, such as underrepresentation of one sex within an organizational unit, unequal salary allocations to men and women of comparable merit, and sexual harassment. Traditionally, it has been believed that the process of peer review would result in identification of the most appropriate candidates for academic positions (Broad, 1980). However, the adequacy of peer review has been challenged in grievances brought by female faculty members against their employers (Farley, 1982). Organizational Level

Sexual harassment has been ruled illegal because it destroys the safe working conditions for many women. Within educational institutions specifically. it affects the quality of the working lives of faculty and staff members, and it interferes with the education of students, a principal organizational goal. A recent survey of Harvard faculty and students (McCain, 1983) investigated the incidence of sexual harassment experienced by women at Harvard. The results showed that 32% of tenured Faculty women, 49% of untenured faculty women, 41 % of female graduate students, and 34% of female undergraduates reported that they had encountered some form of sexual harassment from someone in authority at least once during their time at Harvard. Looks, gestures, or verbal harassment comprised between one-third and two-thirds of the incidents reports. Of the remaining incidents, between 3 and 16% represented more serious infractions, such as pressure for sexual favors. Fifteen percent of the graduate students and 12% of the undergraduate students changed programs or majors because of such an incident, but most of the students had not reported the harassment because of fear of reprisals. Although federal regulation has declared such sexual harassment to be illegal. the typical institutional response has entailed minimal intervention. Such inaction may be viewed as an attempt to remain impartial, but it may also be understood as condoning male sexual license in a male-defined system. According to Tidball and Kistiakowsky ( 1976). this stance indicates that institutional action is taken only when federal regulation requires it. Under these regulations, however, the federal government monitors the extent to which colleges and universities achieve their institutional goals. In particular, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 states: “No person shall . . . on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” But even though Title IX has addressed some of the concerns of women students about the quality of the

The Values of Academe

33

education they receive, several recent developments suggest that nondiscriminatory education is more myth than reality. For example, the quality of athletic programs for women students is usually less than the quality of programs for men. In one recent case (“Women’s Sports,” 1983), Colorado State University adopted a five-year plan to give additional support to female athletes, after a federal audit found that only 21.9% of the university’s athletic scholarships were going to women, although they represented 50% of the student body. This action can be seen as a correction of an unfair situation; however, given the recent Supreme Court ruling in Grove Cic College v . Bell (Fields, 1984), it seems unlikely that sex discrimination will be eliminated in response to legal sanction alone. In its decision, the Court ruled that the whole college is not subject to the requirements of Title IX just because one of its programs receives federal funds. This decision is likely to help reverse some of the progress made following the Title IX Amendment.

Unregulated Forms of Sex Discrimination In addition to practices defined as discriminatory, there exist a number of behaviors not traditionally recognized as discriminatory, but which clearly have unequal consequences for men and women. Individual Level

At the level of the individual faculty member, there appear serious problems of person-environment fit. French, Rodgers, and Cobb (1974) suggest that stress occurs when there is a lack of congruence between the motivations and skills of an individual, and the demands and role expectations of an organizational position. As the discrepancy increases between an individual’s expectations and those of his or her environment, a greater degree of stress is experienced. The nature of this stress is clarified further by Barnett and Baruch’s ( 1978) characterization of the successful woman as a “survivor.” They suggest that, with continued underrepresentation except in subsidiary roles, faculty women are often seen as atypical and as violating normative standards. The dynamics of tokenism would predict that anyone in such a situation would risk being stigmatized, isolated, and even ostracized (see also Yoder, 1985). Organizational Level

Discrimination also limits the effectiveness of educational institutions at the organizational level. To the extent that female values do not significantly affect the educational process, the educational system serves to perpetuate a society

34

Fuehrer and Schilling

dominated by male values. The needs of women students are therefore poorly represented in curricula and in educational practices. Considerable concern has been expressed over early school experiences that “feminize” men (e.g., Sexton, 1969), but there has been no comparable expression of concern for education that “masculinizes” women. A recent report o f t h e Project on the Status and Education of Women of the Association of American Colleges ( 1982) documents a variety of behavior patterns of faculty and students that result in devaluing women in both classroom and laboratory settings. The behaviors include overtly discriminatory comments and actions, sexist humor. discouraging classroom participation, and nonverbal exclusion or disparagement. That women’s current situation may be somewhat better than that of a decade ago is suggested by a follow-up study to Lunneborg and Lillie’s (1973) classic documentation of differences in the letters of recommendation for male and female graduate school applicants. These authors examined letters for students admitted to graduate programs in psychology at the University of Washington between 1963 and 1967. Sexist comments were identified in letters written in support of 34% of the female students. According to Lunneborg and Lillie, these letters served to perpetuate stereotyped standards of evaluation that made it difficult for women to achieve according to men’s normative standards. A recent study by Stake, Walker, and Speno (198 I ) failed to replicate the earlier findings, creating some hope that there has been progress toward equal treatment of male and female graduate school applicants. The pattern of the Stake et al. results, however, suggests the continuation of d rential treatment to the disadvantage of women applicants. Although no significant main effect for sex of applicant was observed in this study, there was a significant interaction between applicant sex and reference sex. Letters by female writers were rated higher for female applicants than for male applicants, whereas letters by male writers were rated higher for male applicants. If female referees were as available to female applicants as male referees are to male applicants, applicants of both sexes would receive about equal treatment. However, given the preponderance of males on most faculties, it appears that sex discrimination in reference letters probably continues.

I t is important to consider the cost to society of disseminating knowledge created by a predominantly male scholarly establishment. Laws ( 1979) describes this as a basic epistemological dilemma: Work that is distant from women’a experience will not provide a valid knowledge b a x f or understanding women’s lives. Insofar as scholars have a monopoly o n the techniques for acquiring valid knowledge. or on the means for disseminating information. the sex com-

The Values of Academe

35

position of the academic profession warrants pessimism about the scholarly study of women. If this work is left to men. negligible amount of indifferent quality may result. (p. 13)

Laws argues that the social sciences, for example, are patriarchal and that in this context important questions about women will come up only by chance. If there are those who would claim that scholarship is value free or apolitical, reference to Shields’s ( 1975) historical treatment of the sex-difference issue should prove informative. She illustates how specific personality characteristics can be viewed as either assets or deficits depending on one’s political context and value stance. Only by women’s fuller participation in the creation of new knowledge can there be movement away from an objectification of women’s experience and the labeling of it It is likely, as Laws suggests, that the atmosphere of academe retards thinking about women, but the consequences of this discrimination may be even more devastating for the advancement of learning. Miller (1976) has suggested: “We have reached the end of the road that is built on the set of traits held out for male identity-advance at any cost, pay any price, drive out all competitors, and kill them if necessary” (p. 88). A number of years ago Erikson (1968)suggested that women may need to save the world from its destruction by men: “Mankind now obviously depends on new kinds of social inventions and on institutions which guard and cultivate that which nurses and nourishes, cares and tolerates, includes and preserves” (p. 318). It is long past the time for the academy to heed his warning.

Continuation of Discriminatory Patterns lndividual Level Some questions regarding discrimination against women faculty members have been suppressed by appeal to the principles of objectivity and impartiality that guide educational institutions. But the realities experienced by many academic women contradict the official position. Rossiter (1982) notes that women’s beliefs in the objectivity of science kept them from recognizing the inadequacy and unfairness of their own evaluations by male colleagues. More generally, idealized commitments to academic freedom have made it difficult for women wishing equal participation in the academic community to recognize bias. Wishing to be part of an enterprise that is fair, just, and impartial has worked to silence potential criticisms of bias or discrimination. The striking differences in the representation of men and women in academe, a result in part of previous discrimination, may be better understood in terms of Miller’s ( 1976) analysis of dominant-subordinate relationships. She states:

36

Fuehrer and Schilling dominant groups will tend to suppress conflict. They will see any questioning of the “normal” situation as threatening: activities by subordinates in this direction will be perceived with alarm. Dominants are usually convinced that the way things are is right and good. not only for them but especially for subordinates. All morality confirms this view, and all social structure sustains it. (p. 9)

Thus, both men and women have perpetuated the functioning of educational instiutions that reflect dominant male values. Subordination of women within this system, then, is a natural consequence of the presumption of no difference between men and women in their functioning in academe when the metric is the male standard of performance. Astin and Bayer began their 1973 paper “Sex Discrimination in Academe” by stating that Sex discrimination in academe does not begin when a woman accepts an appointment at a college or university. Rather. it is rooted in the cumulative effects of early childhood socialization for “appropriate” sex role behavior and attitudes. differential treatment and expectations of girls and boys by their parents. teachers. and peers throughout adolescence and early adulthood. and differential opportunities for admission to undergraduate and graduate school. . , . As a result. when wonien enter teaching careers in colleges and universities they have interests, aspirations. expectations. educational backgrounds. and experiences that differ from those of their male counterparts (p. 333).

They go on to say that an academic reward system that is biased toward men is “far from ideal and may even be dysfunctional to the educational objectives of colleges and universities” (p. 333). Surprisingly, Astin and Bayer then abandon this perspective in favor of a discussion of what they describe as “more traditional” factors in discrimination. We here attempt to develop Astin and Bayer’s initial arguments more fully. Different “gender curricula” exist for boys and girls from the time of birth; there are different socialization patterns in the family, school, and peer group. Resultant gender differences are most often translated into female deficits. A striking example of this has been the rapid, widespread, and to a large extent continuing acceptance of Horner’s ( 1972) formulation of a “fear of success” among women, despite numerous empirical studies and subsequent reviews that have found little support for either the reliability or validity of Horner’s original measures (Condry & Dyer, 1976), or the replicability of her findings (Tresemer, 1976). Indeed, returning to Horner’s own data, Sassen (1980) has offered a constructivist reinterpretation with a very different slant on the source and significance of the anxiety experienced by women in Horner’s “success” dilemmas; she suggests that it is only the distinctly competitive definition of success that fosters the popular notion that women are afraid to succeed. Sassen argues that recognition of the great emotional costs at which success through competition is often gained makes such success less desirable to women. Accordingly, women will be found lacking in a system in which evaluations are based primarily on individual achievement at the expense of others. Further, women may experience a sense of personal failure in the autonomy lauded by the academic

The Values of Academe

31

establishment, and their male colleagues may view them as less adequate because of their desire for connection (Pollak & Gilligan, 1982). As was true of Lever’s (1976) girls, females may be described as poor game players because they indicate more concern for the cvnsequences to the players than for the rules of the game. According to Kanter (1977), as long as members of a gender group are represented only in token numbers within an organization, three predictable dynamics are involved. First, members of the underrepresented group are highly visible and heavily scrutinized. Standards set for their behavior are likely to be higher than for members of the majority group. Second, members of the token group are perceived in terms of stereotyped qualities. Behaviors in accord with expectations are accepted, whereas those considered atypical are rejected. Third, pressures are exerted on members of the token group to conform to the prevailing culture, modifying their behavior so that it will match that of members of the dominant group. As long as women are underrepresented in educational institutions, it will be difficult for them to be accepted fully and for their values to influence the functioning of the academic environment. Adequate representation of women on the faculties of educational institutions will not, however, guarantee changes in the academic environment. Harragan (1977) advises that women will become accepted members of educational institutions only by learning the rules of the academic game taught to their male colleagues through participation in sports teams or military units. Women will be expected to increase their fit with the environment by adopting the same professional strategies exhibited by their male colleagues, rather than by modifying the environment. According to Kilson (1976), the difference between men’s and women’s careers within academe may be attributed to factors ranging from institutional discrimination. through women’s internal ambivalences which produce a pattern of “autodiscrimination.” to the existence of a culturally preferred academic career pattern tailored to the image of a “family-free“ man. ( p . 940)

Thus, although the normative expectation is for men to be assisted by their families, women’s family responsibilities often work in reverse: they usually interfere with their paid work. Organizational Level

A number of writers have commented on the conditions that foster the highest quality of education for women students. For instance, Conway (1974) indicated that access to even the most prestigious coeducational institutions does not insure a high quality education for women: If genuinely equal treatment of the sexes were an educational goal. then it should also involve changes in the content of the curriculum. . . . It might also affect the very

Fuehrer and Schilling

38

creation of knowledge because a new group with new social perspectives would be recruited into the research activities of the universities which are today the major creators of knowledge. Finally. if coeducation were really to result in equal treatment for males and females, there should be the same pattern of career development for men and women into the professional elites of society. Up to the present, however. attention has been focused on the access of women t o institutions of higher education. with little or no thought given to the relationship of women students to the curriculum, women scholars to research activity, or women graduates to the occupational structure of society. When access is considered in isolation, the logic of coeducation as an equitable social policy appears to be overwhelming. The logic for educating women in male-controlled institutions is by no means so strikingly apparent. however. (p. 239)

Contributing to the lack of quality of education of female students are the perceptions of their ability by male students. Komarovsky (1973), in a classic study of male development, suggested that men are socialized to believe in their superiority over women, As more female students seek and gain admission to colleges and universities, male students are confronted with intellectually equal or superior women whose achievements may be perceived as threats, despite the fact that female achievement does not set limits on male development or performance. Churgin (1978, pp. 97-98) suggests that any change in men’s behavior that occurs will require the academic community “to undergo a profound reappraisal of its identity both individually and collectively.” This soul searching will be required because “those who comprise the traditional academic community have been imbued with a fixed and unconscious pattern of behavior” that will change only with difficulty. Some types of educational institutions may be better than others in providing quality education to women. Tidball (1973) suggests that coeducational environments reinforce early socialization patterns that emphasize the primacy for women of finding a mate. This, however, is not true in women’s colleges where larger numbers of female role models encourage students to develop career goals and professional behavior. According to Tidball, women’s success is directly proportional to the number of female role models to whom they have access. Tidball and Kistiakowsky (1976) indicate that a narrow range of institutions has been supportive of women’s predoctoral preparation. Women’s colleges and private universities attended by a large percentage of women students, and with a long and continuous history of women graduates who obtain doctorates, provide strong socialization of women professionals. Both types of institutions are characterized by a climate favorable to women. Thus, at the level of organizational effectiveness, educational institutions appear to engage in discriminatory practices. Societal Level The mere participation of women in the current value system of academe will not enhance the quality of contributions to society of intellectual endeavors.

The Values of Academe

39

Men and women must recognize that those characteristics and values associated with women’s development are not weaknesses or failings but can contribute to the advancement of knowledge by all scholars. Appreciation for the contextual ernbeddedness of knowledge and the responsibilities of connectedness can only ensure more effective functioning of the academy at the level of its contributions to the functioning of broader society.

Recommendations What are the prospects for change in the current situation’? As long as the range of behaviors identified as discriminatory remains narrow, little progress will be made. However, if we take seriously the definition of sex discrimination as “any unnecessary practice that has unequal consequences for people of different sex,” we can begin to eliminate conditions that. although not currently identified as such, are oppressive to women and detrimental to all of society. In order to improve the quality of working life for women faculty, their numbers must be increased. Andersen (1983) has stated: For outsiders. their paradoxical closeness to and remoteness from social groups niay result in new perspectives on knowledge. It is the outsider who suspends belief in thc taken-forgranted attitudes of institutions. Feminists have concluded that in this way the status of women in intellectual lifc results in new methodologies and new perspectives of thought. (p. 228)

However, these perspectives of which Andersen writes, no matter how valuable. will offer little to the process of change of educational institutions if they continue to be the views only of outsiders. An increase in the number of women in faculty and administrative positions is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for institutional change. Institutions that move away from numeric underrepresentation of women niay also benefit from retlection on what women bring to their work experience that is different from what men bring. Models of change by “superwomen” who adopt male standards of achievement and try to do it all hold little promise for significant institutional change. Barnett and Baruch’s (1978) exhortation to women to join the rat race may result in greater access for a few women; however, Janeway ( 1983) has recently noted, Even when perfect equality [of achievement] prevails, the hiring institution will hesitate to assume its existence and therefore to risk betting on the research potential of young women as easily as it does on that of young men. (p. 565)

It may be unwise to assume that women can become successful men of the academy. Indeed, it may be unreasonable to assume that any faculty should be comprised mainly of Kilson’s “family-free men.” Reformulations of models of scheduling and career paths should occur. Men and women with lives beyond the classroom and laboratory must be involved in education for the future.

Fuehrer and Schilling

40

The different set of values that women bring to the functioning of the academy should inform institutional policy for evaluating faculty contributions; reevaluation of criteria for promotion and tenure should occur so that collaborative research will be as highly valued as “independent” research. When the quality of scholarly contributions is evaluated rather than the number of senior authorships, the issue of independent ownership of ideas will become less crucial. Acceptance of differences in the socialization and experience of men and women will establish the study of women’s experience as a valuable endeavor. Finally, the valuing of different perspectives will enhance the quality of education of both men and women students, and of scholarly contributions to the functioning of society. As the evidence on gender differences in socialization becomes clearer, conscious control over processes of socialization becomes more of a possibility. We are confronted more directly by questions of what we value. and how future generations will be educated as one means of ensuring those ends. Sassen (1980) suggests that “women now need to focus on affirming the structures and values they bring to the question of competition versus relationships and start restructuring institutions according to what women know” (p. 22). Although sexism is currently a natural consequence of the values of academe, that situation need not continue. When educational institutions embody the values of both men and women equally, we can mGve closer to the reality of a nondiscriminatory society.

References Andersen. M. L. ( 1983). Thinking uborct ~ ‘ o n ~ eSocio/o,yy n: und,fominist p”r.ul”i’tii,r.s. New York: Macmillan. Astin. H. S . . & Bayer. A. E. (1973). Sex discrimination in academe. In A . S . Rossi & A. Calderwood (Eds.). Acudemic w m e n on the marc (pp. 333.356). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Barnett. R . C.. & Baruch. C . K . (1978). The cotnpctetit Mwmun. New York: Irvington. Broad. W. J. (1980). Ending sex discrimination in academia. Science. 208. 1120-1122. Chickering, A.. & Associates. (1981). The modern Americun college. San Fran Churgin, J . R. ( 1978). The new wwmun und the old ucudeme: Sexism und higher editcation. Roslyn Heights, NY: Libra Publishers. Condry. J . C., & Dyer. S . L. ( 1976). Fear of success: Attribution of cause to the victim. Joitmul of Social Issues. 32. 63-83. Conway, I. K . (1974). Coeducation and women’s studies: Two approaches to the question of women’s place in the contemporary university. Durdulus. 103, 239-249. Erikson, E. (1968). Identitv. youth und crisis. New York: Norton. Farley. J . ( 1982). Acudemic women atid etnplovment cliscriminution: A criticul untiotuted hih/iographv. Ithaca. NY: New York State School of Industrial Relations. Cornell. Fields, C. M . (1984, March 7). Supreme Court rules anti-sex bias law covers only college programs that get direct U.S. aid. Chronicle ($Higher Educution. 28(2). I . French, J . R . P.. Rodgers, W . L., & Cobb. S . (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G . Coelho, D. Hamburg. & J . A d a m (Eds.). Coping unduduptution (pp. 316-333). New York: Basic Books. Graham. P. A. (1978). Signs: Joirmul of Women in Cirltirre und S o c i e f ~3. . 759-773.

The Values of Academe

41

Grant. W. V . . & Snyder- T. D. (1983). Di,qc,s/ of d i r u r i m i d ,s/tr/i,sric~.\. /YX3-X4. Wahhington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. USGPO. Harragan. B. L. ( 1977). Gumr.s w i o r h ~ vm v c ~ruir,~htyoir. New York: Warner Books. Horner. M. S. ( 1972). Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts in women. Joitrtiul O f ’ s O l ’ i U / !,S.SIrC.S. 28. 157- 76. Janeway. E. (1983). Equality for wonien (Letter to the cditor]. Sc~icviw.222. 565. Kanter. R . M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and response5 to token women. Atnrric~uiJourriul of’ S O C ~ ~ O /X2, O ~965-990. ~. Katz. D., & Kahn. R . L. ( 1983). The w e i t r / p s y c . l i o l o ~ yo?forKirrii_crtio~i.s(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kerr. C. ( 1963). Thc ir.se~.s of /he rrniversity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kilson. M. ( 1976). The status of women in higher education. S i ~ m Joirrmrl : of’ Wonirri irr Cultitre, mid Society. I , 935-942. Komarovsky, M. ( 1973). Cultural contradictions and sex rolcs: The niasculine case. Arrrc,riuri Jorrr!lcrl of’ s o l ~ i o / o ~7x. y . 873-884. Laws. .I.L. (1979). The .src~orid.r. New York: Elsevier North Holland. Ledvinka. J. ( 1982). Fedc,rti/ rcjiitlotion of’ persotitiel tirid hitrmrri r e . s o i i r ~mumqywwir. ~~ Boston: Kent. Lever, J . (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Socicrl Prohltwis. 23. 478-487. Lunneborg, P., & Lillie, C. (1973). Sexisin in graduate admissions: The letter of recommendation. Americ.irn Psychologisr. 28, 186- 189. McCain, N. (1983. November 2). Female faculty members and students at Harvard report sexual harassment. Chrotiide of’ Higher Ediicurion. 27( 10). I . Miller. J . B . ( 1976). Towurd u new’ / J . S ~ C / ~ O / Oof’~ ~wornen. Boston: Beacon. Pollak. S.. & Cilligan C. ( 1982). Images of violence in Thematic Apperception Test stories. Joirrriul of’ Prrsorruliry arid Sociul P.syc.ho/ogy. 42. 159- 167. Project on the Status and Education of Women. ( 1982). The chrssroom clirntirr: A (,hilly ow ,for womeri.? Washington. D.C.: Association of American Colleges. Rossiter. M. ( 1982). Women sc~irnrisrsin A m e r i c . ~SrrirgRIe~s : w i d ,strcr/e~ic,s l o IY40. Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sassen. G. (1980). Success anxiety in women: A constructivist interpretation of its sources and significance. Hurwrd Educ~tirio~iu/ Rn?cw. SO. 13-25, Sexton, P. C. ( 1969). Thcfi.mirii;cd m r r l e : C/irs.\room,s, kchire cdlurs uiid /he d i d i r i r of’ i n u n l i i w x . New York: Random House. Shields, S. ( 1975). Functionalism. Darwinism and the psychology of women. Americwr Psycho/o g i s t , 30. 739-754. Stake. J. E., Walker, E. F., & Speno, M. V . (1981). The relationship of sex and academic performance to quality of recommendations for graduate school. Psyc~hology of’ Wo!nen Qiiurter/y. 5(4), 515-522. Stimpson. C. (1984. October). What lies beyond the “woman as victim” construct? New directions for women’s studies. Ms. Muc~nzinr./3(4). 83-84. Tidball. E. ( 1973). Perspectives on academic women and affirmative action. Ed~rcu/ionulRecord. 54. 130-135.

Tidball. M. E . . & Kistiakowsky. V . (1976). Baccalaureate origins of American scientists and scholars. Scienc,e. 1Y3. 646-652. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, governing clause. Tresemer. D. (1976). The cumulative record of research on fear of success. Sc.r Rolcs. 2 . 217-236. Yoder. J . D. (1985). An academic woman as a token: A case study. Jorrrriul o f ’ . S o i . i d /.s.siic~.s. 4 / ( 4 ) . 61-72. Women’s sports get boost at Colorado State University. ( 1983. November 2). Chroriich~of’ Highor Educurion. 27( 10). 24.