DOCUMENT RESUME ED 378 926 HE 028 100 AUTHOR Wenninger, Mary Dee, Ed. TITLE Women in Higher Education, 1994. REPORT NO ISSN-1060-8303 PUB DATE 94 NOTE 164p. AVAILABLE FROMWomen in Higher Education, 1934 Monroe St., Madison, WI 53711-2027 (yearly subscription, $79). PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT Women in Higher Education; v3 n1-12 1994 EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS College Administration; College Faculty; Court Litigation; *Females; Feminism; *Higher Education; Newsletters; Presidents; Sex Bias; Sex Discrimination; Sexual Abuse; Sexual Harassment; State Legislation; Women Administrators; Women Faculty; Womens Athletics; Womens Studies IDENTIFIERS California State University; tiniversity of California ABSTRACT This document consists of the 12 monthly issues of a newsletter on women students, teachers, and administrators in higher education, issued in 1994. Each issue includes feature articles, news on higher education, profiles of significant peoplein the field, and job announcements. The issues' main article topics are: (1) campuses's changing definition of family and employee benefits, mentoring, and listening skills;(2) interim positions and defining sexual harassment;(3) gender pay gap for administrators, and cultures of decision making;(4) getting into administration and department chair positions, and women trustees;(5) campus safety and women presidents;(6) sex bias in athletics, resolving problems, professional support networks, and current research;(7) opening the Monterey Bay campus in the California State University system, tenure litigation, and grooming for campus leadership;(8) the "stained glass ceiling" limiting women's advancement at Catholic schools, single sex schools, and survival strategies for women administrators; (9) organizational models for gender equity on campus, handling hostile male students, and confronting conflict; (10)a California law requiring University of California to reveal the cost of sex bias suits, negotiation skills, and women in science and other male fields; (11) relations between women's centers and women's studies; sexual harassment, academic freedom, and due process, as well as negotiating for a higher salary; and (12) value differences and gender issues, getting and keeping a top student affairs post, and math anxiety. (JB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** CA CN 00 WOMEN BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ()eke of Educe trona! Research end Irnprosmonf "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CI This document has been reproduced as received from the person or colonization onconahng it O Mawr changes save been made to improve Mary Dee Wenninger reproduction quality Points Of new or oprniOns slated in ttme dOCtt men) do not necessarily represent officral OE RI positron or policy TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2 WOMENJANUARY 1994 Volume 3, No. 1 Campuses Expand Definition of "What Is a Family?" Academe has walkeda fine line between preserv- ing tradition and embracing social change, and the What's HOT and What's NOT movement toward providing employee benefits for in Higher Education for 1994 domestic partners is no different. In 1992, Stanford, the University of Iowa and NOT HOT Albert Einstein College of Medicine became the first schools to offer health benefits to domestic partners. Managers Leaders Now many leading private and public schools are Stars Team players adopting similar policies, such as MIT, Harvard, Autocracy Consensus Columbia, Princeton, University of Chicago, Univer- End justifies means Valuing the process sity of Vermont and University of California-Berkeley. Techy bells & whistlesProductivity boosters Coverage Varies Paper address book Electronic device At least 30 schools now offer some benefits to Gender bias Helping them "get it" nonmarried partners. Most limit benefits to sick or Sexual harassment Helping them "get it" bereavement leave, tuition reduction and access to Time: by semester Time: whatever works campus housing, recreation and health services. New products Better services Schools usually cover only same-sex partners, TQM CQI/Quality Improvement reasoning that gays and lesbians legally lack the Productivity numbersProductivity results option of marriage to qualify for spousal benefits. Diversity quotas Multi-culturalism Eligibility requi:ements also vary. To receive Lifers Sequential careers domestic partner states, couples usually must docu- Being chic Being real ment financial interdependence and common resi- dence for at least six months, by showing a lease or Suggestions from WIIIE readers, Center for Teaching and mortgage and other records. Learning at Cal State Long Beach and others. Children of domestic partners also may be eligible for health benefits. A new City University of New rudimentary means for empowering and sustaining York (CUNY) report recommends covering children same-sex relationships" as are available to married when both partner and child are dependents. couples. Why Extend Benefits? CUNY also sees practical advantages: "Everyone Colleges cite a variety of reasons to cover domestic gains, for communities are more productive as they partners, including social and political pressures, become more inclusive." ethical a- d humanitarian considerations. Costs Overestimated Stanford saw the issue as ore of competition. It felt Employer anticipations of cost increases in the offering comprehensive benefits would help them hire overall benefits plan, because more people are cov- and retain the best employees: "Within five or ten ered, and because of an increase in AIDS claims, were years, such coverage will be standard for many unfounded. employers, including universities.". At Stanford, only 28 employees out of 10,000 Iowa viewed partner benefits as "a humane and signed up, which the CUNY report says is typical for equitable response to community members who live in colleges. stable long-term relationships." Many partners already have health coverage. CUNY was already in a city with nondiscrimina- Other gay employees do not seek partner benefits tion policies concerning sexual orientation and prefer- because they aren't ready to disclose their relation- ence, and a large gay and lesbian community. CUNY ships. leaders felt political and moral pressure to make Pregnancy, Not AIDS, Costs Employers "practice comply witl. policy" and provide "such The actual cost of enrolling a domestic partner has proven to be less than for a married spouse, Institution type: Four-year 58%, two-year 42% according to the New York Times (June 13, 1993): Institution size: More than 5,000 students 51%. "The single most expensive medical cost is preg- fewer 49% nancy-related...[and] domestic partners are statisti- Career paths: Many are late or interrupted. cally less likely to get pregnant." Age: 20s= 8%; 30s=26%; 40s=52%; 50s=12%; And AIDS claims cost no more than any other 60s=2%. serious illness, according to Harvard's 1993 domestic Philosophies: Range from awakening awareness of partnerships report. the need for special support for women and women's Public Reactions Mixed ways of accomplishing goals on campus, to those But even with practical concerns allayed, some who would describe themselves as strong feminists. oppose the expanded campus policies on principle. The majority are in the middle. Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee Criteria for Selecting Proposals had approved a housing department recommenda- 1. Results are expected to have practical implica- tion to allow gay couples to live in a campus apart- tions for helping women to succeed on campus: ment complex. But the ensuing controversy led by career, personal, spiritual, helping others. Ohio politicians dissuaded OSU leaders from estab- 2. Subject matter is of interest to WINE readers. lishing the new policy. 3. Survey design is likely to produce practical The University of Vermont, conversely, faced results that can be generalized to a larger group. public public pressure to include gay couples in its 4. Any creative design or application aspects? health benefits policy. When President Thomas Procedure to Apply Salmon denied the request, saying the University's Summarize your proposal on no more than three definition of spouses was consistent with state law, pages, including what you want to learn,. how you the state Labor Relations Board ruled that the school will measure your results, what the results will mean was discriminating. to women on campus, estimated timelines and other Most campuses actually have experienced relevant info. Small words work best. smooth policy changes, with little public debate. Be sure to include your name, title, department, But when it does occur, debate should be wel- school, address and phone number. Call WIHE at comed as a necessary part of the process, says the (608) 251-3232 if you have questions. Proposals are CUNY Study Group on Domestic Partnerships, due on April 1, 1994. Researchers submitting selected convened by Chancellor Ann Reynolds. proposals will be notified by May 1, 1994. Its October 1993 report emphasizes "the impor- Although applicants need not be subscribers, tance of communication in dissolving the categories regular readers are advantaged by knowing WINE that often divide us." subscriber's