Debra Ness, President, National Partnership
Just days after the release of the National Partnership’s analysis of new U.S. Census data that shows a gender-based wage gap exists in nearly every corner of the country, researchers at Yale University have published a powerful new study that shows gender impedes women’s advancement in science. The stunning results reveal a deep and punishing bias against women – one that undercuts the potential for professional and financial success for women in the field.
According to the New York Times, the researchers wanted to assess barriers to advancement for women in science beyond the now common explanations used to justify women’s absence or slow progress in the field. These are the same baseless excuses some people use to deny the existence of a gender-based wage gap in this country: women make different choices, they pursue less lucrative careers or they opt out of the workforce to care for children. As this new study and many others show, these arguments simply don’t hold up.
The Yale team of researchers asked science professors at a handful of private and public universities to consider the job application of a recent graduate. Each professor was given the same one-page summary of the candidate, but with one key difference: name. In some cases the applicant was named John and in others Jennifer – but the summary of qualifications did not change. And here’s what happened:
On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being highest, professors gave John an average score of 4 for competence and Jennifer 3.3. John was also seen more favorably as someone they might hire for their laboratories or would be willing to mentor.
The average starting salary offered to Jennifer was $26,508. To John it was $30,328.”
The deep bias these researchers identified is shocking and appalling. It shows that, despite women and men entering the workforce on equal footing, prejudice or faulty assumptions can quickly enter into employment decisions – to the great detriment of women’s professional and financial prospects. And the pervasiveness of this bias (seen here among highly-educated academic professionals) makes it clear that sporadic improvements by individuals and employers will not be enough to correct the problem.
That’s where Congress comes in, and that’s why legislation designed to promote basic fairness for women in our workplaces like the Paycheck Fairness Act is so critical.
We cannot continue to let gender bias run rampant in our nation’s workplaces, especially in the face of research like this and the increasing importance of women’s wages to their families and our economy. It’s time to get past the excuses used to justify the unfair and biased treatment of women in the workforce, and to make fixing the problem a priority.
Did these fellows try studying any other names? Say, Cletus versus Elizabeth, or Elmer versus Victoria? Just curious… I could never stand sociology, because it always screamed, “leaping to conclusions” so loud that I couldn’t take it, or anyone claiming authority about it, seriously. Which is not that I think the assumption and conclusion are incorrect in this case. I’m not surprised, though, and I am surprised that anyone thinks it to be a huge revelation. Name discrimination is also something that happens, as well – try studying Cletus and Elmer versus James and Bruce, or Elizabeth and Victoria versus Daisy and Lulu. The job role probably matters too whether a person would think them a job match. And of course, ethnic (Jesus?) and especially invented (Tyquarius? Moon Unit?) names will also have major effects, I expect because people also have strong significance attached to name types, and whether they obediently match the conventionality of corporate expectations – though there I go writing like a sociologist, again.
But really, who is surprised by this, and how much did it really need a study to realize this was the case? And why did they think that they could get away with using only John and Jennifer? (I admit that John and Jennifer seem like reasonable choices for one study, but it’s hardly a wide sample, and it is a slight leap to conclude it’s all sexism – maybe the hiring mindset of Christians favors those with disciple names; or maybe the tabloid coverage of Jen Anniston has tainted our serious regard of Jennifers). The study reminds me of the earth-shattering German study that found that dogs will not eat food they’ve been told not to eat, as long as someone is watching, but will then eat it if the humans leave them alone with it. The reported shock of the researchers also reminds me of the silly claims that “no one could ever imagine terrorists could hijack planes and crash them into buildings” when of course people who thought about terror tactics had thought of that, our government had been studying such scenarios, and so on.
I’m sure a great deal of thought went into the name selection during the study, and if you’d like a full report on the study design, you could request one. At the end of the day, while no one claims that there are evil (in this case scientists) who are vying to keep women out of the field of science, there is obviously something going on that keeps women (who earn more college degrees then men and more at a higher level, with higher grades) earning less than men. Even when taking into account those who opt for more flex schedules and taking out typical “Mom” jobs that allow women more flexibility. Check it out: http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf. So, instead of defending every last reason why this must not be the truth and denying that sexism exists, it would be a breath of fresh air instead of becoming defensive (the natural reaction to accusations of sexism, though many would say it’s not defensiveness it’s simply suspicion of the research methods, etc.) it would be more helpful to try to understand if this happens, how it happens and why it happens. Because, whether you believe this study or not, the TRUTH is there are less women scientists at high levels than men. Is that because they are just not as good as male scientists? Or is something else, more subtle, going on? The bottom line is sexism exists. Just as name discrimination exits as you pointed out. And both these practices are unfair for those who are of that gender or hold that name. So, we can attribute it to this or that, but it’s happening. This study is simply trying to open the eyes of those who may believe that we live in a fair and just world. One that is an equal playing field for all (because many, sadly do feel that way. And many men I know feel that they have reached their positions of power through hard work. Which they did! But they don’t notice all the hard working women, who have worked just as hard, who do not enter their inner circle of upper management at nearly the same rate. WE ALL WORK HARD! So, why are there less women?) When individuals attack studies like this, instead of helping people wake up to the reality of sexism, that it exists and allowing for the next natural step, “Now what do we do about to?” to take place, you are simply allowing people to think that this study is not accurate based on X, Y and Z threats to internal/external validity. Therefore, they can dismiss this study and go back to thinking that the world is in order and that sexism is simply a myth invented by “crazy” feminists. That’s a very dangerous attitude to have, and one that influences others reading this page now, to question whether sexism exists. And, honestly this type of message is the opposite of good science as that attitude is in direct contrast to progress.