You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
So That's How it's Done #2
by Susan Ervin-Tripp, Psycholinguist, Professor of Psychology, UCB
The tone of the letters departments send out to solicit evaluations of
male and female candidates for tenure can inform the reviewer of the
author's own views and thus influence the reply. Here are some examples
quoted from one department's recent tenure cases:
"We are considering the promotion of (Male)"
"Our department is considering the possible promotion of (Female)"
The word "possible" immediately sets a tone of doubt.
Male: "judge the research of such a colleague"
Female: "judge the research of these candidates"
The male is identified as one of our colleagues while the female is made to
seem an outsider and one among several competing for promotion.
"Does it seem to you that (Male's) research has the depth and significance to
place him among the very top people of his age who work in the same area?'
"When we appointed (Female) to an Assistant Professorship...we judged her
research accomplishments and potential to be outstanding...Do you consider
that her subsequent research accomplishments have confirmed our original
judgment, and that she remains in the top rank...?"
The wording of the female candidate's letter goes to some length to imply
that she is not as good as she was originally thought to be.
Female: "Do you feel that during her years here her research has progressed
at the pace expected of members of the faculty of a university...whose goal
it is...to become the top center for (research in our field) in the world?"
This question, added only to the female candidate's letters, raises the ante;
male candidates are not asked to make their departments the world's best.
Comparison of these solicitation letters clearly shows how the
University's procedures permit personal bias to distort the promotion
process.
-wage@wage.org-