Annotated Bibliography
SNUGGLE19
WPG-Power-Gap-at-Elite-Universities-v171.pdf
IVORY UNIVERSITY IVORY UNIVERSITY IVORY UNIVERSITYIVORY UNIVERSITY
WOMEN’S POWER GAP STUDY SERIES • 2022 STUDY
THE WOMEN’S POWER GAP AT ELITE UNIVERSITIES SCALING THE IVORY TOWER
2022 STUDY
THE WOMEN'S POWER GAP AT ELITE UNIVERSITIES
SCALING THE IVORY TOWER 2022 STUDY
Authors Andrea Silbert, Eos Foundation, Lead Author
Magdalena Punty, Eos Foundation, Research & Data Analysis
Elizabeth Brodbine Ghoniem, Eos Foundation, Data Analysis
Published by
© Eos Foundation
All rights reserved
January 2022
EosFoundation.org
WOMEN’S POWER GAP STUDY SERIES
Acknowledgments The WPG team thanks our partners: Gloria Blackwell, Mary Hickey, and Shana Sabbath at AAUW, Michael Kennedy, our technology expert at Zudy, Evelyn Murphy at the WAGE Project, Melody Stanford Martin at Cambridge Creative Group, Sandy Lish and team at The Castle Group, President Lynn Perry Wooten and Simmons University, Julieta Garcia, Anne Massey, Nancy Nager at The Boston Club, the Boston Women Leaders Network, HBCU Community Development Corporation, and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. We are grateful to the universities who responded to the data request, and specifically those who took the time to share and discuss racial and ethnic data among their top leadership. Finally, we thank the Eos Foundation team for their tireless efforts to research, verify, organize, and display data in an accessible form: Sarah Lacey Graham, Madeline Gorewitz, Tandeka Guilderson, Kellie Marchant, Danielle McPhee, Thomas Mengebier, Kemi Morrison, Nicole Porter, Steven Porter, Marta Rosa, Akshayaa Shrestha, Daniel Trivino, and Sam Tsongalis as well as our summer interns: Shelby Casimir and Genesis Vazquez.
Design by Cambridge Creative Group (cambridgecreativegroup.com), cover design by Maddy Luehr ([email protected]).
@womenspowergap WomensPowerGap.org
(508) 430-8130 [email protected]
gender parity women’s power gap
The Women’s Power Gap Initiative
The Women’s Power Gap (WPG) Initiative was created by the Eos Foundation in 2018 to dramatically increase the number of women from diverse backgrounds among CEO and C-suite leaders nationally. We conduct and commission actionable research on prominent sectors of the economy and measure the extent of the power and wage gaps at the company or institutional level to highlight those making fast progress and those falling behind. Each report is accompanied by a public dialogue and community conversation highlighting the issue and offering practices and policies to increase representation and inclusion. Past reports include The Power Gap Among Top Earners at America’s Elite Universities and the Women’s Power Gap in
Corporate Massachusetts.
The Women's Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower is the second in a series of two reports examining compensation and top leadership among the country’s 130 major research universities (R1 as defined by the Carnegie Classification). For updates on the Initiative and to learn more, visit WomensPowerGap.org.
AAUW
The American Association of University Women (AAUW), founded in 1881, is a nonprofit organization that advances equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, and research. It works to remove barriers that inhibit women’s economic security. Its main goals include closing the gender pay gap, promoting women’s leadership, opening more pathways for girls and women of color, and ensuring equal access to affordable education, especially in the STEM fields. AAUW is one of the world’s leading supporters of graduate women’s education. It has awarded more than $130 million in fellowships, grants, and awards to 13,000 recipients from 145 countries. The organization has a nationwide network of 170,000 members and supporters, 1,000 local branches, and 800 college and university partners.
gender paritygender parity
gender parity women’s power gapparitypowerwomen’s power gap
1The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Call to Action ________________________________________________________________ 3
Fast Facts _____________________________________________________________________ 4
I. Introduction ________________________________________________________________ 6
II. Methodology _______________________________________________________________ 7
III. Comprehensive Gender Index and Ranking __________________________________ 8
IV. Key Findings ______________________________________________________________ 12
V. A Tale of Two States – California and Massachusetts _________________________ 22
VI. Recommendations/Solutions _______________________________________________ 24
Appendices ___________________________________________________________________ 26
Appendix A: Charts and Tables of Interest ___________________________________ 26
Appendix B: Methodology ― Terminology and Ranking ______________________ 33
Appendix C: University and Institution Profiles ______________________________ 37
gender par- itygender parity
gender parity women’s power gapparitypow-women’s power gap
2 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
A CALL TO ACTION Since the 1970s, women have outnumbered men on college campuses, and for more than a decade, they have received the majority of PhDs. Women of color represent the fastest growing segment of the college population in the United States. Yet, scan the faces of those who wield power at our most prestigious universities, and you’re still likely to see the all-too- familiar image of another white man.
Last year, a report by the Women’s Power Gap Initiative and the American Association of University Women documented an astounding lack of gender and racial diversity among the most highly compensated professionals at the nation’s top 130 research universities. This companion report, The Women's Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the
Ivory Tower, paints a similarly grim picture: Only 22% of university presidents are women, and a mere 5% are women of color.
Let’s be clear: The power gap is not a “pipeline” issue. Our research found that women account for nearly 40% of all academic deans and provosts, from which 75% of all presidents are drawn. Their dramatic drop in the presidential ranks suggests that they still encounter systemic roadblocks one step from the top.
And let’s not create more solutions to “fix the women” with training programs or blame it on their “confidence gap.” We have interviewed dozens of women on the path to the chief executive’s office across multiple industries. They share a common story — based on rational reflection, women feel they must meet 100%+ of the traditional qualifications to be selected, even as they watch men take a shorter path, in effect a “glass elevator” to the top, based on potential.
And with respect to the recent zeitgeist urging women to lean in and mirror male behaviors, recent studies show that women often face a backlash if they are “too aggressive” and don’t show “feminine qualities.”1 Finally, compounding the obstacles, research has found that women and people of color face a “glass cliff”2 as chief executives, where they are more likely to be hired for top spots in times of crisis, making success harder to achieve. Coupled with a higher likelihood of getting pushed out by their boards, this further discourages women to apply.
The good news is that we are seeing evidence of progress. Over the past 18 months, the number of Black male presidents in this group has doubled. However, Black women didn’t see similar gains. It points to the need for intersectional analysis, goals, and benchmarks.
This report is an urgent call to action, to listen to the voices of those who are shut out or marginalized, and find ways to elevate them. Let’s examine those few universities which have been successful, learn from them, and adopt proactive and intentional policies to challenge the status quo. Because one thing is clear: without diversity among top leaders at the helm, our academic institutions are at risk of failing the next generation of students and leaders.
The power gap is not a “pipeline” issue…. women account for nearly
40% of all academic deans and provosts at these institutions, from
which 75% of all presidents are drawn. Their dramatic drop in the
presidential ranks suggests they still encounter systemic roadblocks one
step from the top.
Based on rational reflection, women feel they must meet 100%+ of the traditional qualifications... even as
they watch men take a shorter path, in effect a “glass elevator” to the top,
based on “potential.”
Andrea Silbert
President, Eos Foundation
Gloria Blackwell
CEO, AAUWgender par- ity gender parity
women’s power gapparitypow-women’s power gap 3The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
So Many Women Students — So Few Women Leaders
So Many Women PhDs, So Few Women Leaders A Tale of Two States
Progress for Black Men
More Paths to the Top for Men
Is It a Glass or Concrete Ceiling?
Boards Are Lagging
Publics Outpace Privates for Diversity of Presidents
Out of Step with Corporate America
Major Gaps for Women of Color Presidents
UC-Santa Cruz • CUNY Graduate School • U of Colorado Boulder • U of Iowa • U of New
Hampshire • U of Wisconsin-Madison
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
2 Asian 2 Black 2 Hispanic
0 East Asian 0 Indigenous
8%
Only 9 of 130 schools have reached gender parity
on their boards
6 schools have had at least 3 women presidents
60 schools have had
ZERO That’s nearly 50%!
LEADERS
LAGGERS
Since 2020, Black male presidents have doubled
...yet Black women didn’t see similar gains
of institutions refused to disclose board diversity data
73% 8 of 11
CA Universities have had a
woman president
38% 3 of 8
MA Universities have had a woman president, and currently ZERO have a woman president
74%
26%
93%
7%
Nontraditional path
Traditional path
ACADEMIC DEANS
All Women
PROVOSTS PRESIDENTS SYSTEM PRESIDENTS
61% 62% 78% 90%
5% 46%
10%22% 38%39%
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
55%
22%
Women of Color
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
19% 5%
Only
8% of boards have gender parity
Only
26% of board
chairs are women
and
PRIVATE
PUBLIC White women
White women WOC MOC
WOC MOC
14% 3% 5%
18% 6% 23%
22%
47%
62% 4 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
So Many Women Students — So Few Women Leaders
So Many Women PhDs, So Few Women Leaders A Tale of Two States
Progress for Black Men
More Paths to the Top for Men
Is It a Glass or Concrete Ceiling?
Boards Are Lagging
Publics Outpace Privates for Diversity of Presidents
Out of Step with Corporate America
Major Gaps for Women of Color Presidents
UC-Santa Cruz • CUNY Graduate School • U of Colorado Boulder • U of Iowa • U of New
Hampshire • U of Wisconsin-Madison
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
2 Asian 2 Black 2 Hispanic
0 East Asian 0 Indigenous
8%
Only 9 of 130 schools have reached gender parity
on their boards
6 schools have had at least 3 women presidents
60 schools have had
ZERO That’s nearly 50%!
LEADERS
LAGGERS
Since 2020, Black male presidents have doubled
...yet Black women didn’t see similar gains
of institutions refused to disclose board diversity data
73% 8 of 11
CA Universities have had a
woman president
38% 3 of 8
MA Universities have had a woman president, and currently ZERO have a woman president
74%
26%
93%
7%
Nontraditional path
Traditional path
ACADEMIC DEANS
All Women
PROVOSTS PRESIDENTS SYSTEM PRESIDENTS
61% 62% 78% 90%
5% 46%
10%22% 38%39%
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
55%
22%
Women of Color
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
19% 5%
Only
8% of boards have gender parity
Only
26% of board
chairs are women
and
PRIVATE
PUBLIC White women
White women WOC MOC
WOC MOC
14% 3% 5%
18% 6% 23%
22%
47%
62% 5The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
* Carnegie Classification may be found at https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
The Women’s Power Gap (WPG) Initiative was created by the Eos Foundation in 2018 to dramatically increase the number of women from diverse backgrounds among CEO and C-suite leaders nationally. Our approach is to collect data for like institutions and compare them against one another to determine who is leading and who is lagging with respect to diversity at the chief executive’s office and the immediate pathway to that office. Over the past four years, we have interviewed numerous chief executives and found that most believe they are doing everything possible to elevate women and people of color. Yet, when ranked against one another, they find that others are doing more. This approach creates a race to the top, driving faster change. In this study, we consider the most elite US research universities (the 130 schools ranked R1/highest level of research activity by the Carnegie Classification*).
Why Higher Education?
These universities collectively educate nearly 4 million students each year (or one out of every five), employ 1.2 million individuals, and receive billions of dollars in government research monies, making them major drivers of our state and national economies. Higher education is viewed as a great equalizer, and institutions of higher education are considered moral exemplars for society. They present role models for our future civic and business leaders, making diversity at the highest levels of leadership paramount. These
institutions have the clout to drive change within their own bodies and to inspire action and motivate change throughout our country. We chose to focus on higher education because we believe the sector could and should be the first to achieve gender parity and fair representation of people of color at the top.
While colleges and universities share robust student diversity information, few share any diversity data with regard to top leadership. Further, in a time of increased scrutiny of corporate boards, only 40 schools provided board diversity data.
We piloted this work in Massachusetts in 2018 with all 93 colleges and universities, following each study with a closed summit for presidents so they could have candid conversations. The schools collectively focused on how to promote more women to the presidency, particularly women of color. In 2021, our follow-up study found the percent of women of color presidents had more than doubled from 6% to 13% in just three years. Having been in conversation with many of the university presidents, we knew that our work together, and the spotlight on women of color, was top of mind. In short, intentionality works!
These institutions have the clout to drive change within their own bodies
and to inspire action and motivate change throughout our country.
We chose to focus on higher education because we believe the
sector could and should be the first to achieve gender parity and fair representation of people of color
at the top.
Over the past four years, we have interviewed numerous chief executives and found that most
believe they are doing everything possible to elevate women and
people of color. Yet, when ranked against one another, they find
that others are doing more. This approach creates a race to the top,
driving faster change.
Women have earned the majority of:
Bachelor's Master's Doctoral
For the last 35 years
For the last 15 years
For the last 40 years
6 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
gender paritygender parity
gender parity women’s power gapparitypowerwomen’s power gap
II. METHODOLOGY
† For more information on IPEDS, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, see https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data.
For this report, we examined the 130 universities classified by the Carnegie Classification as R1/highest level of research activity. We also analyzed data the universities are required to report to IPEDS around tenured full professors.† Race/ethnicity categories are the same as used by the US Census Bureau adapted to include Hispanic/Latinx as a separate race category.
We separated leadership into four major categories:
• Top leadership (consisting of president, provost, and board chair)
• Academic deans
• President’s cabinet (net of academic deans)
• Governing boards
Our research team used public sources to collect gender data (as of September 15, 2021) for all positions and race/ethnicity data for three positions: presidents, provosts, and board chairs. We also collected separate data for the 20 multi-campus university systems that govern one or more R1 campuses, and eight state oversight boards. We then submitted a pre-populated survey to each school or
system to verify the data and request aggregate race/ ethnicity data. In all, we sent out 158 surveys: 95 (60%) responded to our request, and of those, only 79 (50%) provided race/ethnicity data.
For the purposes of this study, we used the following definitions:
• President — chief executive of the R1 campus or multi-campus university system. Various titles include president, chancellor, and chancellor- provost.
• Academic deans — deans of degree-granting programs, schools, and colleges. This does not include the dean of libraries unless that program awards degrees and other administration deans such as deans of students, faculty, etc.
• President’s cabinet — members of president’s leadership team as identified on the university’s website (net of academic deans).
In December of 2021, the Carnegie Classification released a new list of R1 schools. Those changes and more on our methodology can be found in Appendix B.
WOMEN'S VOICES
“
I wish I could share my story with you, however, I can't as I am still here under the glass ceiling.
” — Provost
7The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
III. COMPREHENSIVE GENDER INDEX AND RANKING
For the gender ranking, we awarded points in three main areas:
• President: Do you now have, or have you ever had, a woman president? How many?
• Provost: Is a woman holding this position?
• Teams: What percentage do women represent among academic deans, president’s cabinet, and tenured full professors?
Please note that we can only provide a comprehensive ranking by gender because gender data is researchable through public sources while race/ethnicity data is not. However, 79 institutions kindly provided us with disaggregated gender and racial data which allowed us to look at aggregate statistics. For further discussion of ranking methodology, see Appendix B.
TABLE 1
Comprehensive Gender Index and Ranking
RANK UNIVERSITY
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROVOST
WOMEN ACADEM.
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS
RANKING CATEGORY
1 UC-Santa Cruz 2 38% 60% 36% 92.5 Leader
2 CUNY Graduate School 2 - 43% 63% 43% 89.4 Leader
3 UNH - 3 - 71% 60% 34% 88.6 Leader
4 U of Iowa 2 - 58% 36% 24% 84.8 Leader
5 Brandeis - 1 80% 14% 35% 78.9 Leader
6 Princeton - 1 80% 55% 26% 78.6 Leader
7 Ohio State 1 40% 40% 29% 78.3 Leader
8 Colorado State-Fort Collins - 44% 82% 32% 76.6 Leader
9 U of Colorado-Boulder - 3 - 50% 65% 28% 75.3 Leader
10 U of Wisconsin-Madison 2 - 31% 29% 32% 74.0 Leader
11 U Penn 1 33% 42% 25% 73.6 Leader
12 U of Alabama-Birmingham - 2 50% 38% 29% 73.4 Leader
13 Rutgers - 42% 69% 29% 72.2 Leader
14 Stony Brook-SUNY 1 - 50% 38% 25% 71.5 Almost There
14 U of Rochester - 50% 50% 23% 71.5 Almost There
16 U of Washington-Seattle 1 - 44% 31% 32% 71.4 Almost There
17 UC-Berkeley - 44% 47% 29% 71.2 Almost There
17 U of Tennessee-Knoxville 1 - 46% 33% 30% 71.2 Almost There
19 U of Louisville - 42% 39% 28% 68.6 Almost There
20 U of Minnesota-Twin Cities - 39% 31% 30% 67.5 Almost There
21 Duke - 1 60% 50% 24% 66.9 Almost There
22 U of New Mexico - - 36% 78% 39% 64.9 Almost There
23 U of North Texas - 1 50% 43% 30% 64.3 Almost There
24 Montana State - - 50% 38% 31% 64.2 Almost There
8 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
RANK UNIVERSITY
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROVOST
WOMEN ACADEM.
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS
RANKING CATEGORY
25 UC-San Diego - 1 56% 54% 22% 64.1 Almost There
26 Cornell 1 - 33% 41% 26% 63.8 Almost There
27 UC-Riverside - 2 33% 38% 25% 62.9 Almost There
28 U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - 1 - 50% 100% 35% 62.4 Almost There
29 Albany-SUNY - 1 45% 36% 32% 62.2 Almost There
30 UC-Davis - 1 45% 27% 33% 62.0 Almost There
31 U of Houston 1 12% 33% 25% 61.7 Work to Do
32 U of Illinois-Chicago - 2 - 44% 38% 31% 61.4 Work to Do
33 U of Pittsburgh - - 67% 46% 26% 60.7 Work to Do
34 UMass-Amherst - - - 82% 43% 30% 60.3 Work to Do
35 UNC - 1 - 57% 41% 35% 60.2 Work to Do
36 U of Cincinnati - 1 - 62% 44% 29% 59.8 Work to Do
37 U of Virginia - 1 42% 57% 25% 58.9 Work to Do
38 U of Missouri-Columbia - 1 42% 47% 24% 57.8 Work to Do
39 Binghamton-SUNY - 1 - 57% 45% 29% 57.4 Work to Do
39 Brown 1 - 17% 60% 26% 57.4 Work to Do
41 NYU - - 52% 63% 29% 57.2 Work to Do
42 U of Chicago - 1 42% 42% 24% 56.8 Work to Do
43 Georgia State - - 55% 33% 32% 56.7 Work to Do
44 UT-El Paso 1 - 30% 13% 20% 56.4 Work to Do
45 Emory - 1 - 56% 45% 27% 56.0 Work to Do
46 Texas A & M-College Station 1 - 28% 13% 21% 55.7 Work to Do
47 U of Michigan-Ann Arbor - 1 37% 33% 28% 55.6 Work to Do
47 Columbia - - 52% 56% 27% 55.6 Work to Do
49 Michigan State - 1 35% 36% 28% 55.4 Work to Do
50 Tufts - - 47% 53% 32% 54.6 Work to Do
51 U of Southern Mississippi - 1 - 50% 33% 32% 54.2 Work to Do
52 U of Arizona-Tucson - 1 26% 52% 31% 54.0 Work to Do
53 George Washington - - - 60% 63% 34% 53.1 Work to Do
54 Harvard - 1 - 47% 62% 27% 52.8 Work to Do
55 Indiana-Bloomington - - 31% 30% 29% 52.7 Work to Do
56 U of Oregon - - - 63% 45% 33% 52.5 Work to Do
57 U of Hawaii-Manoa - 1 - 31% 86% 36% 52.3 Work to Do
58 U of Nebraska-Lincoln - - 55% 38% 22% 52.2 Work to Do
59 Washington U-St. Louis - - 44% 88% 22% 52.1 Work to Do
60 UCLA - - 42% 53% 31% 52.0 Work to Do
61 UT-Austin - 1 28% 36% 29% 51.9 Work to Do
62 U of South Florida - 2 - 27% 33% 30% 51.7 Work to Do
63 Iowa State - - 25% 71% 24% 51.5 Work to Do
64 Purdue - 1 - 54% 32% 23% 51.4 Work to Do
9The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
RANK UNIVERSITY
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROVOST
WOMEN ACADEM.
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS
RANKING CATEGORY
64 USC - - 30% 33% 26% 51.4 Work to Do
66 Oklahoma State - 11% 22% 27% 51.3 Work to Do
67 Syracuse - 1 25% 29% 31% 50.9 Work to Do
68 U of Nevada-Las Vegas - 1 - 47% 40% 26% 50.8 Work to Do
69 U of Kansas - 1 29% 27% 26% 50.1 Work to Do
70 U of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign - 2 - 25% 40% 26% 49.7 Work to Do
71 U of Utah - 1 - 38% 65% 27% 49.3 Work to Do
72 UConn - 1 - 38% 38% 32% 49.1 Work to Do
73 Arizona State-Tempe - - 36% 55% 30% 48.8 Work to Do
74 Boston University - - 41% 56% 24% 48.2 Work to Do
75 West Virginia U - - 35% 53% 29% 47.4 Work to Do
76 Stanford - - 43% 48% 22% 47.2 Work to Do
77 Drexel - - - 57% 53% 26% 47.0 Work to Do
78 U of Miami - 1 - 38% 47% 24% 46.0 Work to Do
79 Virginia Commonwealth - - - 60% 40% 24% 45.8 Work to Do
80 U of Central Florida - - - 54% 54% 25% 44.6 Work to Do
80 U of Florida - - - 59% 29% 24% 44.6 Work to Do
82 U of Alabama-Tuscaloosa - 1 - 38% 11% 28% 44.5 Work to Do
83 Washington State - - 31% 46% 27% 43.8 Work to Do
84 U of Nevada-Reno - - - 46% 62% 29% 43.6 Work to Do
85 U of Mississippi - - - 46% 36% 32% 42.8 Work to Do
86 Case Western - 1 - 36% 26% 23% 42.4 Work to Do
87 U of Georgia - - - 47% 41% 29% 42.3 Work to Do
88 UC-Irvine - 1 - 28% 36% 29% 41.9 Work to Do
89 Yale - - - 53% 20% 26% 41.7 Work to Do
90 U of Maryland-College Park - - 29% 46% 25% 41.6 Work to Do
91 Buffalo-SUNY - - - 50% 33% 26% 41.5 Work to Do
92 Temple - 1 - 29% 36% 26% 41.0 Work to Do
93 Kansas State - - - 45% 44% 27% 40.8 Work to Do
94 Notre Dame - - 38% 25% 18% 40.2 Work to Do
95 Northeastern - - - 44% 36% 28% 39.7 Needs Urgent Action
96 NC State-Raleigh - 1 - 27% 36% 24% 39.4 Needs Urgent Action
97 U of Delaware - - 20% 41% 30% 39.1 Needs Urgent Action
98 Georgetown - - - 36% 28% 36% 39.0 Needs Urgent Action
99 Boston College - - - 38% 35% 33% 38.8 Needs Urgent Action
99 Dartmouth - - - 40% 50% 28% 38.8 Needs Urgent Action
101 U of Arkansas - - - 44% 36% 25% 38.4 Needs Urgent Action
102 Vanderbilt - - 27% 22% 25% 38.3 Needs Urgent Action
10 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
powerwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gapgender parity women’s power gapgender parity
gender paritywomen’s power gapgender women’s power gappowerwomen’s power gap
RANK UNIVERSITY
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROVOST
WOMEN ACADEM.
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS
RANKING CATEGORY
103 MIT - 1 - 29% 39% 19% 37.8 Needs Urgent Action
104 U of Kentucky - - - 45% 20% 26% 37.7 Needs Urgent Action
105 UT-Dallas - - 30% 39% 17% 37.6 Needs Urgent Action
106 U of Oklahoma-Norman - - - 41% 31% 28% 37.5 Needs Urgent Action
107 RPI - - 17% 10% 16% 37.2 Needs Urgent Action
108 Florida State - - 15% 56% 28% 37.1 Needs Urgent Action
109 Penn State - - - 39% 37% 27% 36.6 Needs Urgent Action
110 Northwestern - - 18% 50% 24% 36.1 Needs Urgent Action
111 Wayne State - - - 38% 36% 26% 35.8 Needs Urgent Action
112 Oregon State - - - 33% 58% 26% 35.3 Needs Urgent Action
113 UC-Santa Barbara - 1 - 10% 38% 33% 35.0 Needs Urgent Action
114 Georgia Tech - - - 43% 44% 17% 34.2 Needs Urgent Action
115 Rice - - - 30% 67% 24% 33.6 Needs Urgent Action
116 Carnegie Mellon - - - 38% 46% 20% 33.2 Needs Urgent Action
117 George Mason - - - 27% 47% 29% 32.9 Needs Urgent Action
118 Texas Tech - - - 29% 56% 26% 32.8 Needs Urgent Action
119 Mississippi State - - - 33% 50% 22% 32.7 Needs Urgent Action
120 U of South Carolina-Columbia - - - 31% 14% 30% 32.1 Needs Urgent Action
121 Virginia Tech - - - 36% 38% 20% 31.9 Needs Urgent Action
122 Auburn - - - 33% 26% 25% 31.6 Needs Urgent Action
122 Clemson - - - 33% 29% 24% 31.6 Needs Urgent Action
124 Johns Hopkins - - - 22% 50% 27% 29.4 Needs Urgent Action
125 UT-Arlington - - - 30% 38% 21% 29.1 Needs Urgent Action
126 Louisiana State - - - 25% 40% 24% 28.7 Needs Urgent Action
127 Tulane - - - 22% 44% 24% 27.6 Needs Urgent Action
128 Cal Tech - - - 14% 50% 20% 22.0 Needs Urgent Action
129 Florida International - - - 8% 29% 25% 19.5 Needs Urgent Action
130 NJIT - - - 17% 44% 13% 19.2 Needs Urgent Action
11The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
Figure 2 shows that the men’s representation jumps as they climb the ladder from academic deans/ provosts (60%) to president (78%) to system presidents (90%).
In contrast, while women comprise nearly 40% of all provosts and academic deans, they account for only 22% of presidents and 10% of system presidents.‡
‡ In addition to the R1 dataset of 130, we also examined the 135 R2s and found consistent percentages for gender and race among presidents.
IV. KEY FINDINGS 1. The Glass Ceiling Is a Concrete Ceiling
Women, particularly women of color, are underrepresented among all leadership positions, both internally and on university boards. Their highest proportions are in the president's cabinets (net of academic deans), but that is rarely a pathway position
to the presidency. On the flip side, women comprise only one in ten system presidents, and there are no women of color at this level. Figure 1 shows gender and racial representation among six of the eight categories that we analyzed.
MEASURING THE WOMEN'S POWER GAP AT ELITE UNIVERSITIES FIGURE 1
90%
78%
62% 61% 57%
73%
10%
22%
38% 39% 43%
52%
27%
40%
20%
60%
80%
100%
SYSTEM PRESIDENTS
PRESIDENTS PROVOSTS ACADEMIC DEANS
PRESIDENT'S CABINET
TENURED FULL PROFESSORS
Men Men of Color (MOC) Women Women of Color (WOC)
% Women Student Body
15% 18%
8% 14% 12% 16%
0% 5% 6% 8% 13%
6%
PATHWAY TO THE TOP ― WOMEN VS. MEN FIGURE 2
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
So Many Women Students — So Few Women Leaders
So Many Women PhDs, So Few Women Leaders A Tale of Two States
Progress for Black Men
More Paths to the Top for Men
Is It a Glass or Concrete Ceiling?
Boards Are Lagging
Publics Outpace Privates for Diversity of Presidents
Out of Step with Corporate America
Major Gaps for Women of Color Presidents
UC-Santa Cruz • CUNY Graduate School • U of Colorado Boulder • U of Iowa • U of New
Hampshire • U of Wisconsin-Madison
FAST FACTS 130 ELITE (R1) UNIVERSITIES (106 BOARDS) as of 9/15/21
2 Asian 2 Black 2 Hispanic
0 East Asian 0 Indigenous
8%
Only 9 of 130 schools have reached gender parity
on their boards
6 schools have had at least 3 women presidents
60 schools have had
ZERO That’s nearly 50%!
LEADERS
LAGGERS
Since 2020, Black male presidents have doubled
...yet Black women didn’t see similar gains
of institutions refused to disclose board diversity data
73% 8 of 11
CA Universities have had a
woman president
38% 3 of 8
MA Universities have had a woman president, and currently ZERO have a woman president
74%
26%
93%
7%
Nontraditional path
Traditional path
ACADEMIC DEANS
All Women
PROVOSTS PRESIDENTS SYSTEM PRESIDENTS
61% 62% 78% 90%
5% 46%
10%22% 38%39%
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
55%
22%
Women of Color
PHD EARNERS PRESIDENTS
19% 5%
Only
8% of boards have gender parity
Only
26% of board
chairs are women
and
PRIVATE
PUBLIC White women
White women WOC MOC
WOC MOC
14% 3% 5%
18% 6% 23%
22%
47%
62% 12 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
Public universities and campuses count 24% women presidents, but as can be seen in Figure 3, among the 20 system presidents, women drop to only 10% of the total, and while 15% are men of color, none are women of color. The marked lack of women presidents at the system level is troubling and cause for deeper investigation.
Also dramatic is that nearly one-half of the universities in our study have never had a woman leader (60 of 130 or 46%). A total of 57% of private universities have never had a woman leader, as compared to 42% of public universities (see Appendix A-Table 1). This is in keeping with our other findings showing private institutions are lagging publics in most categories.
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF SYSTEM PRESIDENTS
FIGURE 3
BLACK MEN
HISPANIC MEN
WHITE WOMEN
WHITE MEN
75%
10% 5%
10%
WOMEN'S VOICES
“
We need bold and courageous women in powerful leadership positions who will advocate for other women. In 1986, when I became president of Texas Southmost College, it was largely due to the courageous work of two elected women college trustees, Jean Eckhoff and Mary Rose Cardenas. I would become the first Latina president of an institution of higher education in the country. That was a tall order at that time! Jean and Mary Rose persuaded their colleagues on the TSC Board of Trustees to hire me. Then, once named, they helped me succeed.
In 1991, we led the creation of the new University of Texas at Brownsville and I was named president of UT Brownsville by the UT System Board of Regents. Governor Ann Richards helped us create UT Brownsville. She also named many women as university regents in Texas, and several women regents were named to the System Board. They used their positions of authority to discuss issues important to women on gender, salary, hiring, and promotion and equity. Women in authority as college trustees and as university regents were key to my hiring both times. Boards are extremely powerful, and we must work to diversify these boards, particularly those that are appointed by governors who have other considerations at play.
”
Dr. Julieta Garcia, Former President of the University of Texas at Brownsville
13The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
What explains the precipitous drop in women at the presidential level?
It’s clearly not a pipeline issue; women are well represented among the immediate feeder positions to the presidency. In fact, 50% of all the presidents in this dataset served as provosts immediately prior to their first presidency and 25% served as academic deans.
The “fix the women” approach is not sufficient
to reach parity and may be setting women back. Decades of training programs to prepare under- represented groups for advancement have only contributed to incremental progress, suggesting larger systemic issues holding women back and pointing to a need for cultural change within academe. Some have suggested women suffer from a confidence gap relative to men, which gave rise a decade ago to the “lean in” approach coaching women to behave like men in the workplace, engaging in more self-promotion and aggressive negotiations for advancement and higher compensation. However, recent research3 suggests this approach may be counterproductive because gender bias is endemic and women who “overreach” often suffer a backlash for not fitting gender
stereotypes. So, the confidence gap may be better viewed as a rational reaction to systemic bias.
The “glass cliff effect” may discourage women along the path to the presidency from stepping forward. Studies have documented a “glass cliff” wherein women and people of color are more likely than white men to be hired as chief executives by institutions that are in crisis, making it harder to succeed.4 Women have also given voice to a sense of being “thrown under the bus” and pushed out more readily when they can’t quickly turn things around.
Recent research suggests that the “lean in” approach may be
counterproductive because gender bias is endemic and women who
“overreach” often suffer a backlash for not fitting gender stereotypes.
So, the confidence gap may be better viewed as a rational reaction to
systemic bias.
WOMEN'S VOICES
“
There is this notion that to be successful in the academy we need to act like men. But this can be damaging. It reinforces the masculine structure and plays into stereotypes of what leadership is all about.
”
— Academic dean
“
The level of acceptable behavior for women is extraordinarily narrow. Men can be assertive, aggressive, and even obnoxious at times, but for women, those are not acceptable attributes. Instead, it leads to women getting a lot of negative feedback.
” — Provost
14 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
2. Women of Color Are Nearly Absent, Comprising Only 5% of All Presidents
White women comprise 17% of all permanent presidents, and women of color in aggregate total less than 5%. Of the 124 permanent presidents, there are only two (1.6%) each of Asian, Black, and Hispanic women. There are no East Asian or Indigenous women presidents. Figure 4 below shows how underrepresented
groups fare relative to their representation in the general population. By this metric, Hispanic women are the most underrepresented, holding only 1.6% of the presidents in the dataset, while representing 9% of the US population. It is interesting to note that Asian and Black men are more than fairly represented among R1 presidents.
Figure 5 looks at how women of all racial/ethnic groups fare across all positions. Outside of the presidency, Black women do a little bit better than other women of color representing 5% of academic
deans and board members, and 7% of president’s cabinet (though president’s cabinet are rarely feeder positions to the presidency). Indigenous women account for only 0.2% of these positions combined.
1.6%
3.3% 0.9% 2.0%
3.1% 1.3%
1.9%
1.6%
1.0% 2.8%
5.4%
2.3% 4.6% 6.9%
1.6%
1.2% 0.9%
1.0%
0.8% 1.5% 2.7%
RACE/ETHNICITY BY POSITION FOR WOMEN FIGURE 5
PRESIDENTS PROVOSTS ACADEMIC DEANS
PRESIDENTS' CABINETS
PROFESSORS BOARD CHAIRS
BOARD MEMBERS
Hispanic
Black
White
Asian
PROPORTION OF UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS AMONG PRESIDENTS RELATIVE TO GENERAL POPULATION
FIGURE 4
% Population
WHITE WOMEN
BLACK MEN
BLACK WOMEN
ASIAN MEN ASIAN WOMEN
HISPANIC MEN
HISPANIC WOMEN
16.9%
30.4%
6.1%
3.0%
9.1% 9.5%
6.3% 2.9%
7.3% 1.6% 4.8% 1.6%
4.8% 1.6%
22.4%21.5% 16.9%
22%
38% 39% 43%
27% 26%
33%
31.5% 30.9% 28.3%
20.7%
Totals represent all women data. AIAN, NHPI, multiracial, and unknown not included.
15The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
3. Men Have Access to Multiple Paths to the Presidency, While Women Typically Must Present Traditional Qualifications
4. Recent Gains for Black Men at Public Universities
As mentioned earlier, we tracked the 22 presidential transitions that occurred over the last 18 months (and resulted in a permanent appointment) to see what, if any, impact the recent racial justice movement had on hiring. Black men were selected for six (27%), more than doubling the number of Black presidents from four to nine. Yet only one university hired a Black
woman (or any women of color for that matter), leaving Black women’s representation at 1.6%. This points to the need for setting intersectional goals around race/ethnicity and gender to make sure all groups are fairly represented in leadership. Of note, among presidents across all races, men outnumber women by three to five times.
TRADITIONAL AND NONTRADITIONAL PATHS TO THE PRESIDENCY
FIGURE 6
We conducted a pathway analysis examining each president’s last three positions prior to holding their first presidency. The data in Figure 6 show that men have both traditional (74%) and nontraditional (26%) paths to the presidency, while 93% of women took a traditional academic route and only 7% followed a nontraditional path. We define traditional as rising from either a provost or an academic dean to the presidency. More than a quarter of the male presidents rose from nontraditional academic positions, bypassing a stint as a provost or a dean, or were outsiders such as congressmen or military and business leaders.
Nontraditional Traditional
UNIVERSITIES IN EACH RANK CATEGORY BY PERCENTAGE FIGURE 7
49% NEEDS URGENT
ACTION
28% WORK TO DO
13% ALMOST THERE
10% LEADER
26% 74%
7% 93%
5. Very Few Schools Are Gender-Balanced Across All Leadership Positions
As mentioned earlier, we created a weighted ranking system to award points across multiple leadership categories and grouped schools into one of four
categories, as per Figure 7. While 10% of schools are categorized as Leaders and 13% are Almost There, a full 77% fall into Needs Urgent Action or Work to Do.
16 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
6. Boards Lag Rather Than Lead!
In this moment of corporate board accountability, there is a shocking lack of leadership and transparency from university boards. Of all groups in our survey, universities were the most reluctant to provide diversity statistics for governing boards, with only 38% providing us numbers. If boards do not provide transparency and hold themselves accountable to diversity goals, what message does that send to those who work at the universities, or to donors, alumni, and students? This flies in the face of the corporate board responsibility
movement, which has been pushing for full board disclosure and required numbers of women and people of color on public company boards.
Figure 8 below shows how the individual boards break out based on the percentage of women board members. Only nine boards (8%) have reached gender parity at 50% or higher, and a whopping 81 (76%) have fewer than 40% female members. For complete board data, see Appendix A ‒Table 5.
Only 9 Boards Have 50%+ Women Board Members
WOMEN BOARD MEMBERS AMONG 106 BOARDS
FIGURE 8
9 BOARDS WITH 50%+ WOMEN
PARITY 37
BOARDS HAVE 30-39%
WOMEN
16 BOARDS
HAVE 40-49% WOMEN
44 BOARDS
HAVE LESS THAN 30% WOMEN
ELITE UNIVERSITIES OUT OF STEP WITH CORPORATE AMERICA
In January of 2022, the CEO of State Street Global Advisors announced in his letter to shareholders:
“
Beginning in the 2023 proxy season, we will expect boards to be comprised of at least 30% women directors ... we are prepared to vote against the Chair of the Board's Nominating Committee, or the board leader should a company fail to meet these expectations ... In the upcoming proxy season, we will take voting action against responsible directors if (1) companies in the S&P 500 and FTSE 100 do not have a person of color on their board, (2) ... do not disclose the racial and ethnic diversity of their boards, and (3) ... do not disclose their EEO-1 reports.
”
...while 44 have less than 30%!
Michigan State University (75%!) • University of Colorado • Washington State
University • Board of Regents State of Iowa • Princeton University • University of Minnesota-Twin Cities • Wayne State
University • Oregon State University • Virginia Tech
17The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
As per Figure 9, among the aggregate number of all board members, women comprise only 33%, and women of color only 8%. Black and Asian men are represented at 7% and 4%, respectively, proportionate to their numbers in the general population, while Black and Asian women are 5% and 2%. Both Hispanic men and women are significantly underrepresented relative to their populations at 2% and 1%.
The position of board chair is extremely powerful, particularly with respect to hiring and supporting
presidents. As we see in Figure 10, women hold only 26% of the board chair positions, men of color account for 10%, and women of color only 5%. Asian women and both Hispanic women and men hold less than 1% of these positions.
Boards should reflect their customers, in this case students, 52% of whom are women among R1 universities. Finding diverse board members can take place far more quickly as multiple positions open every year.
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF BOARD MEMBERS
FIGURE 9
WHITE MEN
47% WHITE WOMEN
22%
BLACK MEN 7%
ASIAN MEN 4% HISPANIC
MEN 2%
BLACK WOMEN 5%
ASIAN WOMEN 2%
HISPANIC WOMEN 1%
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF BOARD CHAIRS
FIGURE 10
WHITE MEN
63%
WHITE WOMEN
21%
BLACK MEN 4%
ASIAN MEN 4% HISPANIC
MEN 1% BLACK WOMEN 3%
ASIAN WOMEN 1%
HISPANIC WOMEN 1%
WOMEN'S VOICES
“
One of the things I have observed is that a lot of the work to pursue top positions is in the social domain. A lot of presidential searches are more about your golf game than your capacity to be a CEO.
”
— Vice provost
AIAN, NHPI, multiracial, and unknown not included.
18 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
8. Not All Deans Are Created Equal: Gender-Based Occupational Segregation
Girls and boys are tracked into disparate career paths beginning in childhood. Institutions of higher learning should do everything they can to change this dynamic. While nearly every university encourages young women to enter male-dominated fields, if women students don’t see themselves represented among leadership, the talk is just hollow. Schools need to walk the walk!
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS AMONG PRESIDENTS AND PROVOSTS FIGURE 11
PRIVATEPRIVATE Presidents
Provosts PRIVATEPRIVATE
PUBLICPUBLIC
PUBLICPUBLIC
14% White women
38% White women
18% White women
29% White women
6% WOC
5% WOC
6% WOC
3% WOC
5% MOC
16% MOC
23% MOC
22% MOC
47% MOC
47% MOC
59% MOC
59% MOC
40% MOC
40% MOC
5% MOC
7. Public Universities Lead Relative to Private Universities
As per Figure 11, at public universities, women and people of color comprise 47% of all presidents. In marked contrast, at private universities, underrepresented groups hold only 22% of the presidencies. For women and women of color, publics lead privates by 24% to 16% and 6% to 3%, respectively.
Conversely, private universities lead publics in terms of provosts, where women comprise 43% and men of color 16%. Why are underrepresented groups doing well at private universities as provosts but not getting to the president’s office? What are public universities doing to hire more diverse presidents, and why are they lagging with provosts?
OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION: LOWER PAY FOR DEANS IN FEMALE-DOMINATED FIELDS
FIGURE 12
Male-dominated field
Female-dominated field
MEDICAL SCHOOL
BUSINESS ENGINEERING NURSING SOCIAL SCIENCES
SOCIAL WORK
$645k
$413k $374k
$319k $293k $274k
Gender-based occupational segregation is a major contributor to both gender power and pay gaps. It is critical for universities to seek out women deans in traditionally male-dominated fields to provide role models for their female students.
In terms of the pay gap, we analyzed data from CUPA-HR with respect to the proportion of male and female deans in various fields and how that correlated with compensation. The most highly paid were medical school deans with an average salary of $645,000. Men hold 75% of these deanships.5 Women, in turn,
dominate as deans of nursing schools, which provide an average pay of $319,000, less than half of the average pay for medical school deans. The other two male-dominated deanships are engineering and business management, while for women, they are social sciences and social work. See Figure 12 for average compensation for six deanships. The gender
Women presidents at private universities add up to 17% due to rounding.
19The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
pay gaps are striking. What can universities do? Well-endowed universities can lead by turning the occupational pay gap on its head. Why not increase the average pay for typically female fields? Pay reflects societal values, and instead of reinforcing these values, elite universities should lead society, not hide behind the notion that they must blindly follow the market compensation rates. Should we really be paying a medical school dean twice what we pay a nursing school dean? While it takes more years of study to become a doctor than a nurse, once in these positions, the roles are equally demanding.
Figure 13 examines diversity among academic deans. In total, 76 institutions provided aggregate race/ethnicity data for academic deans and 77 for the president’s cabinet. Among all academic deans, 8% are women of color and 14% are men of color. Those numbers are 13% and 12% for the president’s cabinet. It is
interesting to note that Black women score relatively better among deans than they do among presidents and provosts, while Asian and Hispanic women still lag in this category.
The percentage of women academic deans at each institution ranges from a high of 82% to a low of 8%, and only 25% of the 130 universities reached gender parity among academic deans, as Figure 14 shows. The majority of institutions have fewer than 40% women among their academic deans. Three schools deserve special attention — women represent 80%+ of the academic deans at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst, Brandeis, and Princeton, seeding the pool for highly qualified women presidents. A full list of the ranking of all schools by percentage women among deans can be found in Appendix A ‒Table 5.
REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN ACADEMIC DEANS
130 SCHOOLS
FIGURE 14
31 40-49% WOMEN
66 LESS THAN
40% WOMEN
33 PARITY
50%+
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF ACADEMIC DEANS FIGURE 13
WHITE BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC
Men
Women 43.2%
3.7% 5.8%
2.9%
30.9%
4.6% 1.3% 1.5%
AIAN, NHPI, multiracial, and unknown not included.
Well-endowed universities can lead by turning the occupational pay
gap on its head. Why not increase the average pay for typically female fields? Pay reflects societal values, and instead of reinforcing these
values, elite universities should lead society, not hide behind the notion
that they must blindly follow the market compensation rates.
Should we really be paying a medical school dean twice what we pay a
nursing school dean? While it takes more years of study to become a
doctor than a nurse, once in these positions, the roles are equally
demanding.
20 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
9. No School Has Reached Gender Parity in Tenured Full Professors Category
Unfortunately, no school has reached gender parity among tenured full professors. CUNY Graduate School comes the closest at 43%, and at the bottom of the range is New Jersey Institute of Technology with only 13%. Appendix A-Table 5 presents a full ranking of schools by percentage of women among tenured full professors.
Schools that receive federal funding must report demographic data for their faculty annually to IPEDS.
The data for tenured full professors found in Figure 15 is from the most recent reporting period of Fall 2020 and represents 68,617 data points. Once again, white and Asian men dominate the ranks at 55.4% and 11.2%. Among tenured full professors, Asian women do relatively better at 3.3%, while Black and Hispanic women are 1.0% and 1.2%.
10. Lack of Data Transparency Impedes Accountability and Progress
While nearly every university provides publicly available diversity reports regarding their students, we have yet to find one that provides information around racial and gender power gaps at the top. Several large corporations have been leading on reporting gender and race data among their leadership and on their boards (and all public companies must disclose compensation of their five highest paid executives in their proxies). It is disconcerting that universities — highly esteemed nonprofit institutions — are not disclosing this data to their students, alumni, and the public in this era of transparency.
Without baseline data available to the public, there is no pressure on individual schools to set benchmarks, track progress, and report on progress to the public. Making this data publicly available is foundational to accelerating change by allowing stakeholders to see the baseline and hold institutions accountable for setting and achieving measurable progress.
In Appendix B, we have listed the 79 schools that failed to provide race/ethnicity data. This includes 17 schools that submitted partial data and 62 schools that did not respond.
While nearly every university provides publicly available diversity reports regarding their students, we have yet to find one that provides information around racial
and gender power gaps at the top... It is disconcerting that universities — highly esteemed nonprofit institutions — are not disclosing this data to their students,
alumni, and the public in this era of transparency.
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF TENURED FULL PROFESSORS FIGURE 15
WHITE BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC
Men Women
55.4%
1.6%
11.2%
2.7%
20.7%
1.0% 3.3% 1.2%
AIAN, NHPI, multiracial, and unknown not included.
21The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
V. A TALE OF TWO STATES — CALIFORNIA AND MASSACHUSETTS
We took a deeper look at two states to see whether geography has any impact on gender balance and found that in the case of California and Massachusetts, it certainly seems to play a role. Figure 16 shows that of the 11 R1 universities in California, three currently are led by women and eight of 11 have had at least one. UC-Santa Cruz has had three. In their histories, California's schools have had a total of 11 female presidents, while among the Massachusetts
R1 institutions, there have only been three women. No school in Massachusetts has had more than one woman president. Could this signal a "one and done" phenomenon?
Among the eight R1 universities in Massachusetts, none currently have a woman president; only three — Brandeis, Harvard, and MIT — have ever had a woman president.
COMPARISON OF WOMEN PRESIDENTS AT CA AND MA R1 UNIVERSITIES FIGURE 16
Current: 0
Historically 3 of 8
Historically 8 of 11
Current 3 of 11 27%
73%
38%MA
CA
IS IT "ONE AND DONE" FOR WOMEN AT MASSACHUSETTS' UNIVERSITIES?
“
The "one and done" phenomenon is when boards, presidents, and CEOs think their work is done after having appointed one woman to a top position, such as university president in this case. Per Inga K. Beale, former CEO of Lloyd's of London, "Those women who have been a CEO in a large organisation will say, and in fact some will know, that our successors are going to be men." Speaking to several of them, the common view is that chairs think they have done their bit by hiring a woman, now the role can go back to a man. It feels as though we took two steps forward and are now taking one step back.
”
— Shaheena Janjuha-Jivraj, Associate Professor at HEC Paris
22 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
Tables 2 and 3 pull out the comprehensive ranking for all California and Massachusetts R1 institutions. We have rated five of 11 California schools (45%) as Leaders or Almost There, whereas of the eight
Massachusetts schools, only one is a Leader (12.5%), Brandeis, and seven of eight (87.5%) are either Work to Do or Needs Urgent Action.
TABLE 2
California — Comprehensive Gender Index and Ranking
RANK UNIVERSITY
TYPE % WOMEN ENROLLED
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROV.
WOMEN ACADEMIC
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS RANKING CATEGORY
1 UC-Santa Cruz Public 48% 2 38% 60% 36% 92.5 Leader
17 UC-Berkeley Public 52% - 44% 47% 29% 71.2 Almost There
25 UC-San Diego Public 48% - 1 56% 54% 22% 64.1 Almost There
27 UC-Riverside Public 53% - 2 33% 38% 25% 62.9 Almost There
30 UC-Davis Public 59% - 1 45% 27% 33% 62.0 Almost There
60 UCLA Public 55% - - 42% 53% 31% 52.0 Work to Do
64 USC Private 54% - - 30% 33% 26% 51.4 Work to Do
76 Stanford Private 45% - - 43% 48% 22% 47.2 Work to Do
88 UC-Irvine Public 52% - 1 - 28% 36% 29% 41.9 Work to Do
113 UC-Santa Barbara Public 53% - 1 - 10% 38% 33% 35.0 Needs Urgent Action
128 Caltech Private 37% - - - 14% 50% 20% 22.0 Needs Urgent Action
TABLE 3
Massachusetts — Comprehensive Gender Index and Ranking
RANK UNIVERSITY
TYPE % WOMEN ENROLLED
CURRENT WOMAN
PRES.
# PAST WOMEN PRES.
WOMAN PROV.
WOMEN ACADEMIC
DEANS
WOMEN PRES.
CABINET
WOMEN TENURED
FULL PROFS.
TOTAL POINTS RANKING CATEGORY
5 Brandeis Private 58% - 1 80% 14% 35% 78.9 Leader
34 UMass-Amherst Public 50% - - - 82% 43% 30% 60.3 Work to Do
50 Tufts Private 57% - - 47% 53% 32% 54.6 Work to Do
54 Harvard Private 51% - 1 - 47% 62% 27% 52.8 Work to Do
74 Boston U Private 58% - - 41% 56% 24% 48.2 Work to Do
95 Northeastern Private 48% - - - 44% 36% 28% 39.7 Needs Urgent Action
99 Boston College Private 54% - - - 38% 35% 33% 38.8 Needs Urgent Action
103 MIT Private 40% - 1 - 29% 39% 19% 37.8 Needs Urgent Action
23The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS/SOLUTIONS
Bold systemic change is needed to combat the gender and racial power gaps embedded within our elite universities. These institutions have outsized power and should use it to create new models of doing business that challenge the status quo, instead of reinforcing it.
Governing Boards Have Tremendous Power and Must Step Up!
• Boards, in collaboration with presidents, must make bold, long-term public commitments to reach equitable representation in top leadership and require each college, graduate school, and academic center within the university to do the same. Then, create annual benchmarks to achieve those goals and publicly report on progress annually.
• Governing boards must lead by reporting their own diversity data. Of all the data we collected, board diversity data was the most protected. In this era of board accountability, that is unacceptable. In addition, boards should set goals to reach gender and racial/ethnic parity and elevate women and people of color to serve as chairs and vice chairs.
• Governors, who appoint chairs and board members for system boards and regents, should choose candidates who have experience in promoting systemic change around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Presidents Must Prioritize True Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Presidents must work with their boards toward creating and implementing the diversity goals and benchmarks. In addition, they should commit to eliminating bias in all university processes and procedures — hiring, advancement, and retention, among others. Universities should conduct regular audits to root out unconscious bias and create new processes and procedures. Staff and hiring committees should be accountable for equitable outcomes, not just hiring processes. Are the actual appointments diverse or just the finalist pools?
• Universities should disclose this information on their websites. We have created a sample template for discussion purposes which captures intersectional demographic data across multiple employee categories. While not exhaustive, it can be adapted to include other positions, but should be standardized across like institutions.
Every Individual Has a Role to Play
• We need more male allies. Every individual with power can play a role in elevating those who face gender, racial/ethnic, and other biases.
• Donors, students, their families, and alumni must hold boards and presidents accountable. They should demand data transparency, diversity goals, and benchmarks from their schools. Consumers have power and the right and obligation to use it to push for change.
Bold systemic change is needed to combat the gender and racial power
gaps embedded within our elite universities. These institutions have outsized power and should use it to
create new models of doing business that challenge the status quo, instead
of reinforcing it.
Donors, students, their families, and alumni must hold boards and
presidents accountable. They should demand data transparency, diversity
goals, and benchmarks from their schools. Consumers have power and the right and obligation to use it to
push for change.
24 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
Federal, State, and Local Governments and Office Holders Must Demand Transparency
• The US Department of Education should expand the reporting requirements to IPEDS to include all top leadership categories (see template below). Universities already report faculty and staff demographic data each year, so this is a small add-on. The Secretary of Education should also issue an annual report with the data by institution and discussing progress.
• State and local government officials should do the same as above through promulgating executive orders and/or passing laws requiring greater transparency for these institutions. Both federal and state governments need to issue policy instructions that make clear that the aggregation
of these percentages does not unnecessarily violate personal privacy laws.
• Federal, state, and municipal governments should require all institutions that receive grants or contracts from any agency to publicly report their power gap data and progress annually. This would include student grants and loans, as well as research monies. Give preferential consideration in awarding contracts and grants to universities that can demonstrate progress.
• The White House and Secretary of Education should convene a national summit for college and university presidents, thought leaders, and advocates to discuss this and other reports about the gender and racial power and wage gaps.
Sample Template for University Demographic Reporting TOP LEADERSHIP GENDER RACE/ETHNICITY OTHER DIVERSITY
President/Chancellor Provost Board Chair
ALL OTHER UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND BOARD MEMBERS TOTAL # MEN (ALL CENSUS
CATEGORIES) WOMEN (ALL CENSUS
CATEGORIES)
Staff • Full-time • Part-time
Faculty • Tenured (all levels) • Nontenured (same)
Department Heads/Chairs including center directors Vice Provosts/Vice Chancellors Academic Deans (as defined in this report) Other Deans (could be broken out further) President’s Cabinet Board Vice Chair(s) Board Members (exclusive of chair and vice chairs)
25The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CHARTS AND TABLES OF INTEREST
TABLE 1
Universities Which Have Never Had a Woman President
• Arizona State University- Tempe
• Auburn University
• Boston College
• Boston University
• Caltech
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Clemson University
• Columbia University
• Dartmouth College
• Drexel University
• Florida International University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• George Washington University
• Georgetown University
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Georgia State University
• Johns Hopkins University
• Kansas State University
• Louisiana State University
• Mississippi State University
• NJ Institute of Technology
• New York University
• Northeastern University
• Northwestern University
• Oregon State University
• Penn State*
• Rice University
• Stanford University
• Texas Tech University
• Tufts University
• Tulane University
• University at Buffalo
• University of Arkansas
• UCLA
• U of Central Florida
• University of Delaware
• University of Florida
• University of Georgia
• University of Kentucky
• University of Maryland- College Park
• UMass-Amherst
• University of Mississippi
• University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• University of Nevada-Reno
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma- Norman
• University of Oregon
• U of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus
• U of South Carolina-Columbia
• University of Texas at Arlington
• University of Texas at Dallas
• Vanderbilt University
• Virginia Commonwealth University
• Virginia Tech
• Washington State University
• Washington University in St. Louis
• Wayne State University
• West Virginia University
• Yale University
* Penn State appointed their first woman president to begin in spring of 2022.
26 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
TABLE 2
List of Current Women Presidents This table reflects the current women presidents as of September 15, 2021. We have not included any interim presidents in this table.
WOMEN PRESIDENTS (NET OF INTERIM) UNIVERSITY NAME TYPE PRESIDENT/CHANCELLOR RACE/ETHNICITY
Brown University Private Christina Paxson White
Colorado State University-Fort Collins Public Joyce McConnell White
Cornell University Private Martha E. Pollack White
CUNY Graduate School Public Robin L. Garrell White
Indiana University-Bloomington Public Pamela Whitten White
Iowa State University Public Wendy Wintersteen White
Montana State University Public Waded Cruzado Hispanic
Ohio State University-Main Campus Public Kristina M. Johnson White
Oklahoma State University-Main Campus Public Kayse M. Shrum White
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Private Shirley Ann Jackson Black
Rutgers University-New Brunswick Public Francine Conway Black
Stony Brook University-SUNY Public Maurie McInnis White
Texas A & M University-College Station Public M. Katherine Banks White
University of California-Berkeley Public Carol Christ White
University of California-Santa Cruz Public Cynthia Larive White
University of Houston Public Renu Khator Asian
University of Iowa Public Barbara Wilson White
University of Louisville Public Neeli Bendapudi Asian
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Public Joan Gabel White
University of New Mexico-Main Campus Public Garnett Stokes White
University of Pennsylvania Private Amy Gutmann White
University of Rochester Private Sarah Mangelsdorf White
University of Southern California Private Carol Folt White
University of Tennessee-Knoxville Public Donde Plowman White
University of Texas at El Paso Public Heather Wilson White
University of Washington-Seattle Campus Public Ana Marie Cauce Hispanic
University of Wisconsin-Madison Public Rebecca M. Blank White
27The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
powerwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gapgender parity women’s power gap
gender paritywomen’s power gapgender women’s power gappowerwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gap
TABLE 3
List of Current Men of Color Presidents This table reflects the current men of color presidents as of September 15, 2021. This does not include any interim presidents.
MEN OF COLOR PRESIDENTS (NET OF INTERIM)
UNIVERSITY NAME TYPE PRESIDENT/CHANCELLOR RACE/ETHNICITY
George Mason University Public Gregory Washington Black
Georgia Institute of Technology Public Ángel Cabrera Hispanic
Georgia State University Public M. Brian Blake Black
Louisiana State University Public William F. Tate IV Black
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Private L. Rafael Reif Hispanic
Temple University Public Jason Wingard Black
University at Albany-SUNY Public Havidán Rodríguez Hispanic
University at Buffalo-SUNY Public Satish Tripathi Asian
University of California-Davis Public Gary S. May Black
University of California-San Diego Public Pradeep K. Khosla Asian
University of California-Santa Barbara Public Henry Yang Asian
University of Cincinnati-Main Campus Public Neville Pinto Asian
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Public Robert J. Jones Black
University of Maryland-College Park Public Darryll Pines Black
University of Massachusetts-Amherst Public Kumble Subbaswamy Asian
University of Miami Private Julio Frenk Hispanic
University of Missouri-Columbia Public Mun Choi Asian
University of Nevada-Las Vegas Public Keith Whitfield Black
University of Nevada-Reno Public Brian Sandoval Hispanic
University of Southern Mississippi Public Rodney D. Bennett Black
Virginia Commonwealth University Public Michael Rao Hispanic
Wayne State University Public M. Roy Wilson Multiracial
28 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
CHART 1
Diversity Among Provosts
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY OF PROVOSTS CHART 1
WHITE BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC
Men
Women
30%
20%
10%
40%
50% 53.8%
3.1% 3.8% 1.5%
31.5%
2.3% 3.1% 0.8%
Gender and race/ethnicity for provosts tracks with the same results seen for other positions, predominantly white men and lack of persons of color.
TABLE 4
Race/Ethnicity The table below represents the race/ethnicity data that was received in aggregate or in disaggregated form (presidents, provosts, board chairs, and system presidents), except for tenured full professors for which the data was pulled from IPEDS.
RACE/ ETHNICITY
PRESIDENTS (DOES NOT INCLUDE INTERIM)
PROVOSTS ACADEMIC DEANS
PRES. CABINET
BOARD CHAIRS
BOARD MEMBERS
TENURED FULL
PROFESSORS
SYSTEM PRES.
M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W
White 60.5% 16.9% 53.8% 31.5% 43.2% 30.9% 42.6% 28.3% 62.6% 21.5% 44.8% 22.4% 55.4% 20.7% 75.0% 10.0%
Asian 4.8% 1.6% 3.8% 3.1% 5.8% 1.3% 2.4% 1.9% 3.7% 0.9% 4.1% 2.0% 11.2% 3.3% - -
Black 7.3% 1.6% 3.1% 2.3% 3.7% 4.6% 5.2% 6.9% 3.7% 2.8% 7.3% 5.4% 1.6% 1.0% 10.0% -
Hispanic 4.8% 1.6% 1.5% 0.8% 2.9% 1.5% 2.6% 2.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 1.0% 2.7% 1.2% 5.0% -
AIAN - - - - 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 1.9% - - - 0.1% 0.1% - -
NHPI - - - - 0.1% - - 0.2% - - 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% - -
Multiracial 0.8% - - - 0.7% 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% - - 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% - -
Unknown - - - - 3.2% 1.3% 2.3% 2.3% 0.9% - 7.3% 3.3% 1.3% 0.5% - -
Totals 78.2% 21.8% 62.3% 37.7% 60.0% 40.0% 56.6% 43.4% 73.8% 26.2% 65.6% 34.4% 72.9% 27.1% 90.0% 10.0%
AIAN, NHPI, and multiracial not included, each at 0%.
29The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
TABLE 5
Comparative Rank of Academic Deans, Tenured Full Professors, and Boards
This table shows the percentage of women ranking for academic deans, tenured full professors, and boards. Please note that while the number of institutions for the academic deans and tenured full professor ranking is 130, the
board ranking is for 106. As mentioned earlier, some state oversight or university system boards oversee multiple R1 universities/campuses.
ACADEMIC DEAN RANKING TENURED FULL PROFESSOR RANKING BOARD RANKING
RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK GOVERNING BOARD %
WOMEN
1 UMass-Amherst 82% 1 CUNY Graduate School 43% 1 Michigan State 75% 2 Brandeis 80% 2 U of New Mexico 39% 2 U of Colorado System 56% 2 Princeton 80% 3 U of Hawaii-Manoa 36% 2 Washington State 56% 4 UNH 71% 4 Georgetown 36% 4 Board of Regents Iowa 50% 5 U of Pittsburgh 67% 5 UC-Santa Cruz 36% 4 Princeton 50% 6 U of Oregon 63% 6 Brandeis 35% 4 Wayne State 50% 7 U of Cincinnati 62% 7 UNC 35% 4 U of Minnesota-Twin Cities 50% 8 George Washington 60% 8 U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 35% 4 Oregon State 50% 8 Duke 60% 9 UNH 34% 4 Virginia Tech 50% 8 Virginia Commonwealth 60% 10 George Washington 34% 10 Stanford 48%
11 U of Florida 59% 11 U of Oregon 33% 11 Dartmouth 48% 12 U of Iowa 58% 12 Boston College 33% 12 Brown 46% 13 UNC 57% 13 UC-Davis 33% 13 George Washington 45% 13 Binghamton-SUNY 57% 14 UC-Santa Barbara 33% 14 Brandeis 45% 13 Drexel 57% 15 CO State-Fort Collins 32% 15 MIT 45% 16 UC-San Diego 56% 16 UConn 32% 16 Colorado State-System 44% 16 Emory 56% 17 U of Mississippi 32% 17 George Mason 44% 18 Georgia State 55% 18 Georgia State 32% 18 Cornell 43% 18 U of Nebraska-Lincoln 55% 19 U of Washington-Seattle 32% 18 U of Oregon 43% 20 Purdue 54% 20 Tufts 32% 20 Rice 42% 20 U of Central Florida 54% 21 U of Southern Mississippi 32% 21 Tufts 41% 22 Yale 53% 22 Albany-SUNY 32% 22 Rutgers 41% 23 Columbia 52% 23 U of Wisconsin-Madison 32% 23 U of Kentucky 40% 23 NYU 52% 24 U of Illinois-Chicago 31% 23 Arizona Board of Regents 40% 25 U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 50% 25 U of Arizona-Tucson 31% 23 U of Illinois-System Office 40% 25 U of Southern Mississippi 50% 26 UCLA 31% 26 Boston College 38% 25 U of Colorado-Boulder 50% 27 Syracuse 31% 26 Boston University 38% 25 Montana State 50% 28 Montana State 31% 26 Harvard 38% 25 U of Rochester 50% 29 Arizona State-Tempe 30% 26 Nevada System of H.E. 38% 25 Stony Brook-SUNY 50% 30 UMass-Amherst 30% 30 U of Delaware 38% 25 U of Alabama-Birmingham 50% 31 U of SC-Columbia 30% 30 U of Cincinnati 38% 25 U of North Texas 50% 32 U of North Texas 30% 30 CUNY System Office 38% 25 Buffalo-SUNY 50% 33 U of South Florida 30% 30 Notre Dame 38% 34 U of Georgia 47% 34 U of MN-Twin Cities 30% 30 Virginia Commonwealth 38% 35 U of Nevada-Las Vegas 47% 35 U of Delaware 30% 35 Duke 37% 36 Harvard 47% 36 U of Tennessee-Knoxville 30% 36 U of Rochester 37% 36 Tufts 47% 37 NYU 29% 37 USC 36% 38 U of Tennessee-Knoxville 46% 38 George Mason 29% 38 U of Alabama System 35%
30 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
gender parity
ACADEMIC DEAN RANKING TENURED FULL PROFESSOR RANKING BOARD RANKING
RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK GOVERNING BOARD %
WOMEN
38 U of Nevada-Reno 46% 39 U of Cincinnati 29% 39 U of Miami 35% 38 U of Mississippi 46% 40 U of Alabama-Birmingham 29% 40 Emory 35% 41 Albany-SUNY 45% 41 West Virginia U 29% 41 Tulane 34% 41 Kansas State 45% 42 Rutgers 29% 41 Northwestern 34% 41 UC-Davis 45% 43 U of Georgia 29% 43 U of New Mexico 33% 44 U of Kentucky 45% 44 UT-Austin 29% 43 UConn 33% 45 CO State-Fort Collins 44% 45 UC-Irvine 29% 43 Kansas Board of Regents 33% 45 UC-Berkeley 44% 46 Indiana-Bloomington 29% 43 MT Board of Regents 33% 45 U of Arkansas 44% 47 U of Nevada-Reno 29% 43 Purdue 33% 45 U of Washington-Seattle 44% 48 Binghamton-SUNY 29% 43 U of Michigan-Ann Arbor 33% 45 Washington U-St. Louis 44% 49 Ohio State 29% 43 U of North Texas System 33% 45 Northeastern 44% 50 UC-Berkeley 29% 43 U of Utah 33% 51 U of Illinois-Chicago 44% 51 U of Alabama-Tuscaloosa 28% 43 U of Washington-Seattle 33% 52 CUNY Graduate School 43% 52 Michigan State 28% 43 Columbia 33% 52 Georgia Tech 43% 53 Florida State 28% 43 Syracuse 33% 52 Stanford 43% 54 U of Oklahoma-Norman 28% 43 U of Louisville 33% 55 UCLA 42% 55 U of Michigan-Ann Arbor 28% 55 NYU 33% 56 Rutgers 42% 56 U of Colorado-Boulder 28% 56 SUNY-System Office 31% 56 U of Louisville 42% 57 U of Louisville 28% 57 Clemson 31% 56 U of Missouri-Columbia 42% 58 Northeastern 28% 57 Georgetown 31% 56 U of Chicago 42% 59 Dartmouth 28% 59 U of California-System 30% 56 U of Virginia 42% 60 U of Utah 27% 60 U of Pittsburgh 30% 61 Boston University 41% 61 Columbia 27% 60 University System of NH 30% 62 U of Oklahoma-Norman 41% 62 Kansas State 27% 60 University of Tennessee 30% 63 Ohio State 40% 63 Emory 27% 63 U Penn 30% 63 Dartmouth 40% 64 Washington State 27% 64 Johns Hopkins 30% 65 U of MN-Twin Cities 39% 65 Oklahoma State 27% 65 UMass-System Office 29% 65 Penn State 39% 66 Penn State 27% 65 University of WI-System 29% 67 Wayne State 38% 67 Harvard 27% 65 Yale 29% 67 U of Alabama-Tuscaloosa 38% 68 Johns Hopkins 27% 68 Indiana-Bloomington 29% 67 UConn 38% 69 U of Kentucky 26% 68 West Virginia U 29% 67 U of Miami 38% 70 U of IL-Urbana-Champaign 26% 70 RPI 28% 71 U of Utah 38% 71 U of Nevada-Las Vegas 26% 71 Northeastern 27% 72 UC-Santa Cruz 38% 72 Drexel 26% 71 Florida International 27% 72 Boston College 38% 73 Buffalo-SUNY 26% 73 Vanderbilt 26% 72 Carnegie Mellon 38% 74 Princeton 26% 74 University System of GA 26% 72 Notre Dame 38% 75 U of Kansas 26% 74 University System of MD 26% 76 U of Michigan-Ann Arbor 37% 76 Brown 26% 76 Case Western 26% 77 Arizona State-Tempe 36% 77 Temple 26% 77 Drexel 25% 77 Virginia Tech 36% 78 USC 26% 78 Ohio State 25% 77 Georgetown 36% 79 Yale 26% 78 University of NE-System 25% 77 Case Western 36% 80 Texas Tech 26% 78 U of Oklahoma-Norman 25% 81 U of New Mexico 36% 81 Cornell 26% 78 Florida State 25% 82 Michigan State 35% 82 Wayne State 26% 78 MS Public Universities 25% 82 Mississippi State 35% 83 Oregon State 26% 78 U of Central Florida 25% 82 West Virginia U 35% 84 U of Pittsburgh 26% 78 U of South Florida 25%
31The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
ACADEMIC DEAN RANKING TENURED FULL PROFESSOR RANKING BOARD RANKING
RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK UNIVERSITY %
WOMEN RANK GOVERNING BOARD %
WOMEN
84 Oregon State 33% 85 U Penn 25% 85 Washington U-St. Louis 23% 84 Clemson 33% 86 U of MD-College Park 25% 86 NJIT 23% 84 Cornell 33% 87 Stony Brook-SUNY 25% 87 OK Board of Regents 22% 84 U Penn 33% 88 U of Arkansas 25% 87 Texas Tech System 22% 84 UC-Riverside 33% 89 Florida International 25% 87 U of Missouri-Columbia 22% 84 Auburn 33% 90 U of Houston 25% 87 University of Texas System 22% 84 U of Hawaii-Manoa 33% 91 Vanderbilt 25% 91 Temple 21% 91 Washington State 31% 92 UC-Riverside 25% 92 Caltech 21% 91 U of SC-Columbia 31% 93 Auburn 25% 93 Louisiana State 20% 91 Indiana-Bloomington 31% 94 U of Virginia 25% 94 U of Chicago 20% 94 U of Wisconsin-Madison 31% 95 U of Central Florida 25% 95 Penn State 19% 94 Rice 31% 96 U of Florida 24% 96 U of SC-Columbia 19% 96 UT-Arlington 30% 97 U of Missouri-Columbia 24% 97 Auburn 19% 96 UT-El Paso 30% 98 Louisiana State 24% 98 U of Virginia 17% 96 UT-Dallas 30% 99 NC State-Raleigh 24% 98 U of Florida 17% 96 USC 30% 100 U of Miami 24% 98 University of NC System 17% 96 U of Kansas 30% 101 Northwestern 24% 101 Carnegie Mellon 15%
101 U of MD-College Park 29% 102 Tulane 24% 102 Texas A & M System 11% 101 MIT 29% 103 Boston University 24% 102 U of Houston 11% 101 Temple 29% 104 U of Iowa 24% 104 University of Arkansas 10% 101 Texas Tech 29% 105 Rice 24% 104 U of Hawaii-Manoa 10% 101 UC-Irvine 29% 106 Clemson 24% 106 NC State-Raleigh 8% 106 TX A&M-College Station 28% 107 Iowa State 24% 106 UT-Austin 28% 108 Duke 24% 106 Vanderbilt 28% 109 U of Chicago 24% 109 George Mason 27% 110 Virginia Commonwealth 24% 109 NC State-Raleigh 27% 111 Case Western 23% 109 U of South Florida 27% 112 U of Rochester 23% 113 U of Arizona-Tucson 26% 113 Purdue 23% 114 Iowa State 25% 114 Washington U-St. Louis 22% 114 U of IL Urbana-Champaign 25% 115 U of Nebraska-Lincoln 22% 114 Syracuse 25% 116 Mississippi State 22% 114 Louisiana State 25% 117 Stanford 22% 118 Johns Hopkins 22% 118 UC-San Diego 22% 118 Tulane 22% 119 TX A&M-College Station 21% 120 U of Delaware 20% 120 UT-Arlington 21% 121 Northwestern 18% 121 UT-El Paso 20% 122 NJIT 17% 122 Virginia Tech 20% 122 RPI 17% 123 Caltech 20% 122 Brown 17% 124 Carnegie Mellon 20% 125 Florida State 15% 125 MIT 19% 126 Caltech 14% 126 Notre Dame 18% 127 U of Houston 12% 127 UT-Dallas 17% 128 Oklahoma State 11% 128 Georgia Tech 17% 129 UC-Santa Barbara 10% 129 RPI 16% 130 Florida International 8% 130 NJIT 13%
* Schools showing the same percentages may have different ranks due to rounding.
32 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY — TERMINOLOGY AND RANKING
VERY HIGH RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
As mentioned earlier, Eos Foundation elected to focus on the same 130 R1 universities that were analyzed in our 2021 study: The Power Gap Among Top Earners
at America's Elite Universities. These institutions are defined by the Carnegie Classification as “very high research activity” and used by IPEDS in collecting data to describe and analyze trends in postsecondary education. The listing of universities used in our study comes from the 2018 Carnegie Classification. The dataset comprises 130 R1 universities of which 93 are public and 37 are private, spanning across 44 states.
In December 2021, the Carnegie Classification updated its listings. This change when adopted by IPEDS will result in three of the current R1 universities downgrading to R2 status: Brandeis University, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Conversely, nine universities moved from R2 to R1 status: Baylor University, Kent State University, North Dakota State University, Old Dominion University, University of Denver, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, University of Memphis, University of Texas at San Antonio, and Utah State University.
UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARDS
For each university, we identified their governing/ fiduciary board and collected data on their board membership. In this report, we use the following terms to define the type of board for each institution:
• Independent Board – a board that governs a single private or public university
• State Oversight Board – a board that governs multiple state universities and colleges
• System University Board – a board that governs multiple campuses under a system president/ chancellor.
LEADERSHIP DATA
We collected data for more than 6,300 university leaders and board members. The anchor date for this data was as of September 15, 2021. We grouped these leaders at each of the institutions as follows:
• Top Leadership – president, provost, board chair, and system president (presidents/chancellors of systems that govern the R1 universities/ campuses)
• Academic Deans – deans of schools, colleges, and any other degree-granting programs
• President’s Cabinet – members of the president’s cabinet exclusive of deans
• Board Members – members of the individual, university system, or state oversight boards.
We also collected data for tenured full professors from IPEDS since universities are required to submit this information. This data is for the Fall 2020 reporting cycle.
Beyond the Top Leadership, we do not disclose demographic information for any individual in this report.
Gender
For each individual listed in our university survey, we included their name, title, and gender. We defined gender in accordance with current convention, utilizing W (woman), M (man), and NB (nonbinary). Nonbinary is a term used to identify a person who does not identify within the gender binary classifications of woman or man. We are not able to report on LGBTQ, gender nonconforming, and other diverse categories. We used at least two methods to determine gender, such as photos and pronouns from bios, press releases, articles, and university websites.
33The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
Race/ethnicity
For each president, system president (when applicable), provost, and board chair, we also included individual race/ethnicity. In compiling this data, we used publicly available information, such as bios, press releases, articles, and used annotations defining race/ ethnicity for each individual, e.g., “first ever African American university president.” While selecting race category, we adapted the US 2020 Census Bureau’s definitions, using Hispanic/Latinx as a race, not ethnicity. For brevity, in our tables and graphs, we used abbreviations, as listed in parenthesis below:
• American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN)
• Asian
• Black or African American (Black)
• Hispanic/Latinx (Hispanic)
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI)
• White
• Two or More Races (Multiracial)
• Unknown was used when race/ethnicity was either not provided or not discernable.
For all other positions, we asked institutions to provide race/ethnicity data at an aggregate level using these same categories.
Throughout this report, we refer to people of color (or men or women of color). This relates to individuals that are neither white nor unknown race. The abbreviations used are people of color (POC), men of color (MOC), and women of color (WOC).
In addition, we used the 2020 US Census Bureau’s data for comparison of our findings to the general population:
• White, Non-Hispanic = 59.72%
• Hispanic = 18.61%
• Black, Non-Hispanic = 12.57%
• Asian, Non-Hispanic = 5.88%
• Other/Mixed Race, Non-Hispanic = 2.29%
• American Indian/Alaska Native = .74%
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Our researchers reviewed each institution’s website to compile the data for this report, as well as other sources to obtain race/ethnicity and gender information. We organized and pre-populated the data into a survey that was sent to each institution for validation. Institutions were also asked to provide aggregate racial/ethnic data for academic deans, president’s cabinet, and board members. Each institution was provided an opportunity to validate or change the data.
Researchers then attempted, through several rounds of written and telephone follow-up requests, to work with the designated official(s) at each institution to ensure completion of the data request. In all, we sent out 158 surveys: 95 (60%) institutions responded to our request, and of those, only 79 (50%) provided race/ethnicity data.
34 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
Institutions That Did Not Submit Racial/Ethnic Diversity Data
Institutions that did not respond to our data request
• Arizona Board of Regents
• Brown University
• Colorado State University-System Office
• Columbia University
• Cornell University
• CUNY Graduate School
• Dartmouth College
• Duke University
• Florida State University
• George Mason University
• Georgetown University
• Iowa State University
• Louisiana State University
• Mississippi Public Universities
• Nevada System of Higher Education- System Office
• New York University
• North Carolina State University at Raleigh
• Oklahoma Agricultural Mechanical Board of Regents
• Princeton University
• Purdue University-Main Campus
• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Rutgers University-New Brunswick
• Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
• Stanford University
• SUNY-System Office
• Temple University
• Texas A & M University-College Station
• Texas A & M University-System Office
• Texas Tech University-System Office
• Tulane University of Louisiana
• University of Alabama-Birmingham
• University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa
• University of Arkansas- System Office
• University of California-San Diego
• University of California-Santa Barbara
• University of California-System Office
• University of Chicago
• University of Connecticut
• University of Georgia
• University of Illinois-System Office
• University of Kentucky
• University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
• University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
• University of Nevada-Las Vegas
• University of Nevada-Reno
• University of North Carolina System
• University of North Texas-System Office
• University of Notre Dame
• University of Oklahoma-Norman
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Southern California
• University of Southern Mississippi
• University of Texas-System Office
• University of Virginia-Main Campus
• University of Washington-Seattle
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• University of Wisconsin-System Office
• Vanderbilt University
• Washington State University
• Wayne State University
• West Virginia University
• Yale University
• Auburn University
• California Institute of Technology
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Case Western Reserve University
• George Washington University
• Northeastern University
• Northwestern University
• Oregon State University
• Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus
• Stony Brook University-SUNY
• University of Colorado System Office
• University of Florida
• University of Miami
• University of Oregon
• University of South Florida-Main Campus
• University of Utah
• Virginia Commonwealth University
Institutions that validated partial information
These institutions below validated only gender data, did not disclose race/ethnicity data at a disaggregated level, or provided partial race/ethnicity data for only one or two groups of leaders.
35The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
PRESIDENTIAL CAREER PATHWAY
Our team also analyzed career pathways of current R1 permanent presidents leading up to their first university presidency. We looked at publicly available bios, curriculum vitae, and press releases to collect three or four, and in some instances, more steps on the career path leading up to their current R1 appointment. We used the collected information to identify traditional and nontraditional pathways to the presidency.
• Traditional pathway refers to an academic ladder: faculty>department head>academic dean>provost>president. Individuals who followed this academic path took all or some of the steps, sometimes skipping a rung of this ladder.
• Nontraditional pathway refers to presidents who have risen to the position through a nontraditional process: from a position outside of academia (politician, lawyer, military, private sector) or non-academic positions within university administration.
GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY RANKING
Once the data was collected, validated, and finalized, we then ranked each university by assigning points as follows:
POINT ALLOCATION/WEIGHTING USED TO DEVELOP THE COMPREHENSIVE GENDER INDEX AND RANKING
LEADERSHIP CATEGORY POINTS ASSIGNED
Current Woman President (does not include interim) 20 points
Past Women Presidents (does not include interim) 10 points for each past woman president
Current Woman Provost 10 points
Women Academic Deans .5 points for every 1%
Women President’s Cabinet .1 points for every 1%
Women Tenured Full Professors .5 points for every 1%
Once ranked, each university was also placed in a ranking category indicating how well, we believe, an institution is doing in ensuring that women are represented in university leadership.
RANKING CATEGORY TOTAL POINTS ASSIGNED
Leader 72 points and above
Almost There Between 62 – 71 points
Work to Do Between 40 – 61 points
Needs Urgent Action Below 40 points
36 WPG • WOMENSPOWERGAP.ORG
APPENDIX C: UNIVERSITY AND INSTITUTION PROFILES In this appendix, we have provided profiles of each university and institution. The ranked 130 universities are listed first in alphabetical order followed by the institutional boards and university systems in alphabetical order.
The profiles for the 130 R1 universities include:
• Type of university – public or private
• Total enrollment of students - Fall 2020 enrollment data from IPEDS
• % Women of total enrolled students
• Board type – Individual, State Oversight, or System Board
• Validation status – Validated All Data, Submitted Partial Data, or Did Not Validate
• Rank out of 130 universities
• Ranking category – Leader, Almost There, Work to Do, or Needs Urgent Action
• President name, gender, and race/ethnicity
• Provost name, gender, and race/ethnicity
• Board chair name, gender, and race/ethnicity
• # Past women presidents (does not include interim)
• # Past presidents of color (women and men; does not include interim)
• Table of race/ethnicity for the institutions by academic deans, president’s cabinet, board members (includes board chairs), and tenured full professors (data obtained from IPEDS)
The profiles for the 20 university systems and eight state oversight boards are similar but only display information that is relevant to their type of organization.
37The Women’s Power Gap at Elite Universities: Scaling the Ivory Tower • 2022 STUDY
powerwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gapgender parity women’s power gapgender parity
gender paritywomen’s power gap
University & Institution
PROFILES
About the Eos Foundation The Eos Foundation is a private philanthropic foundation supporting organizations and systemic solutions aimed at nourishing children’s bodies, nurturing their minds, building family economic security, and achieving gender and racial equity. In 2018, we introduced the Women’s Power Gap Initiative, which aims to dramatically increase the number of women from diverse backgrounds in CEO and C-suite positions across all sectors of our economy. The Women’s Power Gap Initiative spotlights prominent sectors of the economy through targeted research, measuring the extent of the power gap, and offering solutions to reach parity. For more information about the Eos Foundation and the Women’s Power Gap Initiative, please visit www.EosFoundation.org and www.WomensPowerGap.org.
women’s power gapwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gapwomen’s power gapgender women’s power gappowerwomen’s power gap women’s power gapwomen’s power gap
ENDNOTES
1. Guillen, Laura, "Is the Confidence Gap Between Men and Women a Myth?" Harvard Business Review, 2018.
2. Bruckmüller, Susanne and Nyla R. Branscombe, "The Glass Cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts," Social Psychology, Volume 49, Issue 3, September 2010, pages 433-451.
3. Guillen, Ibid.
4. Duberman, Amanda, "Why Women CEOs Are Fired More Often Than Men," Huffington Post, May 7, 2014.
5. This information was obtained directly from CUPA-HR. CUPA-HR surveys each university to obtain data. For more information: https://www.cupahr. org/surveys/dataondemand/.
.
WOMEN’S POWER GAP IN CORPORATE MASSACHUSETTS: STUDY AND RANKINGS
@womenspowergap WomensPowerGap.org
(508) 430-8130 [email protected]
gender parity
