October (Cancelled)
November (Cancelled)
University
Committee on the Status of Women
2005 Meeting Minutes
University Committee on the Status of Women Retreat
January 13, 2005
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Minutes
Present: Karl
Alexander, Rosemarie Brager, Sandra Cobb, Linda
Dillon Jones, Francesca Dominici, Linda Fried, Ray
Gillian, Katherine Giuriceo, Barbara Hawkins,
Charlene Hayes, Dorothee Heisenberg, Lisa Heiser, Sharon Kingsland, Julia Morgan, Wanda Queen, Debbie
Sampson (facilitator), Cesarina Sorensen (recorder),
Jo Ellen Stinchcomb, Emma Stokes, and Lindsay
Thompson.
I.
Welcome –
Debbie Sampson
·
Debbie
welcomed the UCSOW members to the retreat and asked them to introduce
themselves.
·
She explained
the agenda and asked the members to elaborate on their expectations from the
retreat. Some of the expectations were to:
o Develop an integrated perspective
o Not shy away from controversial issues
o Establish clear recommendations
o Create not just another report
o Extend conversations with others
o Vision for committee beyond report
o Identify near-term recommendations
o Communicate status to others (especially staff)
o Broaden recommendations
o Develop a format for report/How to use it
II.
UCSOW
Update – Linda Fried
·
See attached presentation (“Where we were; Where we
are; Where we hope to be”).
III.
Business
Case for Change – Lindsay Thompson
·
See attached presentation (“Value Creation in the Academic Knowledge
IV.
Current Culture/Shared Vision – All
·
Debbie
divided the members into three groups and asked them to draft a vision for the
University Committee on the Status of Women.
·
The three
groups shared their vision statements.
·
A discussion
followed resulting in the draft vision statement below for the UCSOW at JHU:
o The
V.
Recommendations – All
·
Debbie
divided the participants into three groups (Students, Staff, and Faculty) and
asked them to develop specific recommendations by using the following format:
o Cultural Barriers
o Recommendations
o Whose Responsibility
o Metrics
o Impact
·
Each group
presented their recommendations. In order to prioritize the recommendations,
each participant had the chance to vote.
It was, however, a general consensus that the results of the voting and
prioritization did not reflect the expectations of the UCSOW members. It was, therefore, agreed to have one or two
representatives of each group (Sharon Kingsland for the student group,
Francesca Dominici and Lindsay Thompson for the
faculty group, and Sandra Cobb and Julie Morgan for the staff group) to
synthesize the groups’ recommendations and send them to Linda within two
business days.
VI.
Next Steps - All
·
The writing
group will read the recommendations of the three sub-groups, prioritize them,
and write a final report to share with the UCSOW.
·
Schedule a
full committee meeting in March 2005
Handouts:
- The University Committee on the Status of Women
Retreat, January 13, 05 (information packet)
-“ Where we were; Where we are; Where we hope to be”
- “Value Creation in the Academic Knowledge
Next Meeting:
UCSOW Full Committee
April 28, 2005
9:00 a.m. –
11:00 a.m.
Anna Baetjer Room W1030
University
Committee on the Status of Women
April 28, 2005
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Anna Baetjer Room, W1030
Minutes
Present: Karl
Alexander, Kathleen Beauchesne, Nicole Beverly
(recorder), Susan Boswell, Rosemarie Brager, Ilene
Busch-Vishniac, Nisha Chandra-Strobos, Sandra Cobb,
Donald Coffey, Francesca Dominici, Linda Fried, Ray
Gillian, Carol Greider, Charlene Hayes, Dorothee Heisenberg, Lisa Heiser,
Michelle Hindin, Jeffrey Jarosz,
Sharon Kingsland, Cathy Lebo, Priscilla March, Julia Morgan, Wanda Queen, Jo
Ellen Stinchcomb, and Emma Stokes.
Guest:
Debbie Sampson
I.
Welcome – Linda Fried
·
Linda
welcomed the UCSW members and asked them to introduce themselves.
·
A draft
Report is half way complete
·
Linda
reviewed the progress to date, the discussion from the January retreat, and the
charge of the group.
·
The writing
groups (sub-committees) have helped to write their respective areas of the
report and have tried to integrate all group reports into 3 key issues:
o Leadership
o Work/Family Balance
o Bias and Discrimination in Career Progress
·
The report
will have an executive summary, will propose a 10 year initiative for change
along with sustainability, and will have the group reports attached as
appendices. It needs strengthening in terms of boldness and recommendations. It
is also important to include short-term wins, as well as who will be
accountable for sustainable change.
·
Linda
reviewed Kotter’s model and the “Ten Reasons Why Diversity Initiative Fail”. See attached.
·
The guiding
coalition is awaiting a final draft for review.
II.
Implementing Organizational Change –
Debbie Sampson
·
Debbie pointed out that the UCSW should not assume that everybody on the
committee is on the same page. She
advised that the group draft a case for change.
·
She distributed a document called “ A
Case for Change” (see attached), and divided the committee into groups to
address 3 questions:
·
What is Changing?
·
Why is it Changing?
·
Why Now?
1.
What
is changing?
·
Cathy Lebo –
Leadership model is changing; JHU is beginning to pay more attention to other
institutions
·
Society’s
expectations for women
·
Nisha Chandra -
·
What is the
problem and who is involved
·
Prior
recommendations not implemented; lacked concrete data
·
How JHU
measures up to its peers
·
·
Proposed a leadership
committee, which would have accountability, and university-wide representation
·
Sandy Cobb –
Leadership model is changing
·
Linda -
·
Expectations
of women are changing; seeking more work/family balance
·
Pipeline
cannot be blamed for the lack of female presence
·
Can use data
to accurately address the biases
2.
What to preserve?
·
·
Reputation
for social change; community involvement adhering to JHU’s
statement: Education for All.
3.
Why is
change necessary…?
·
To remain competitive- playing field has changed
·
JHU has changed (i.e. enrollment), but not seeing change in faculty and
senior staff (leadership)
·
Women’s expectations have changed
·
External funding is increasingly looking for diversity and inclusion
·
JHU responds to crisis; therefore, we have to convey urgency
·
What has been invested in those who are leaving; what is the cost of
attrition?
·
Sense of urgency should be to assume the leadership role on this point,
just as we are leaders in other areas
·
Losing intellectual talent (possibly track talent which has left to find
out what they have done since leaving)
·
Our approach is off target when compared to other academic organizations
(i.e. setting goals, communicating; tracking progress through measurement
·
Data needs to be highlighted in beginning of report to state
·
Case History anecdotal evidence
·
An NSF member has quoted
4.
What
is at stake?
·
Retention of talent
·
Reputation for leadership
·
Ability to recruit talent
·
Cost of losing people (business case for change: Lindsay Thompson)
·
Intellectual and monetary capital
·
The view of current students, faculty, and staff; they serve as
ambassadors in the community
·
What would happen if all women at all levels did not come to work for
even one day…one week?
·
People looking to donate are money seekers; they typically give to
institutions which are known for acquiring donors/large donations
·
Attrition
·
Women students are not inspired to pursue the ranks of women faculty
(particularly in SOM)
·
Ranking for executive leadership in COHFE
·
Women feel they have to choose between family and career
5.
What
is in it for
·
Remain competitive - be the national leader on this issue to showcase
“institutional pride”
·
Survival of excellence for the institution
·
Increased moral, retention, and sustainability
·
The empowerment of employees
·
Goodwill in community
·
Attract diverse students
·
Quotes from student report:
o
o
>50% female student enrollment; but conversely not leading in gender
equity
6.
Where
are we going?
·
Building a leadership model, which includes change to attract and retain
women
·
Choices for future: act now for long-term change and progression, or stay
silent and see problem worsen and weaken the institution long-term
·
Concrete framework for institutional, tangible change that can be
monitored
·
Establish a body or office with resource-rich members to monitor the
change full-time
·
Joint accountability; key players must be involved at the same level
·
Flexible, supportive, inclusive and responsible workplace
·
Have women succeed in a model appropriate for both genders
·
Broaden guiding coalition to include trustees and other so all leaders
are charged with accountability
III.
Open Discussion – All
·
Linda has been invited to present the report to Academic Affairs
committee of Board of Trustees in the FALL
·
Linda asked members to e-mail comments regarding the report for editing
purposes
·
Areas of concern from members regarding the report:
o
Key points are buried beneath other information
o
Clarity/Focus must be improved (Julia Morgan volunteered to assist)
o
Nisha volunteered to write a
description/proposal for establishing an accountability committee and its
functions (implement sustainability aspect of report and incorporate requiring
and receiving accountability from Deans)
IV.
Next Steps - All
·
Revise and
expand on working draft
·
Charlene to
create a running list of “JHU will not Tolerate” issues focused around gender
issues
·
Make case for
change outcomes strong and serve as the preamble to the report
o Nisha volunteered to draft case for change, along with Dorothee, Sharon and Cathy will assist with drafting.
o Report should request funding for the initiative,
but coalition must buy-in first before building a case for funding.
o Mirror what
o All recommendations were supported by the
committee. Many suggested adding more detail/data per recommendation
·
Consider both
a public expert and internal report for leadership
·
Must create
an environment where women with families may have support when they take leave;
and transition support for when they return to work.
·
Linda asked
Charlene, Kathleen Beauchesne, and Cathy Lebo to
begin completing the chart “Leadership Recommendations” and get back to Linda
within a week
·
Linda asked
for help in writing Section III – volunteers: Emma Stokes, Lisa Heiser, Francesca Dominici, and
Sharon Kingsland
·
UCSW will
meet again once a complete draft is done; within the next month or in early
July.
Handouts:
- 2005 Report of the University Committee on the
Status of Women (draft)
- John Kotter’s Eight Steps
to Transforming Your Organization
- Ten Reasons Why Diversity Initiatives Fail-
Christopher J. Metzler, Esq.; ISSN 1545-2808
- A Case for Change
- UCSOW Faculty Appendix with Calculation, 4/27/2005
- UCSOW Faculty subcommittee
- UCSOW Student subcommittee, Statement of Findings and Recommendations
- Work-Family Balance – Recommendations
Next
Meeting:
TBD
University
Committee on the Status of Women
Full Committee Meeting
Mattin Center 162,
September 19, 2005 9:30 – 11:30 AM
Minutes
Present: Kathleen
Beauchesne, Nicole Beverly (recorder), Susan Boswell,
Ilene Busch-Vishniac, Francesca Dominici,
Linda Fried, Ray Gillian, Katherine Giuriceo, Barbara
Hawkins, Jeffrey Jarosz, Cathy Lebo, Julia Morgan,
Wanda L. Queen, Jo Ellen Stinchcomb, Emma Stokes, and
Lindsay Thompson.
I.
Welcome – Linda Fried
·
Linda thinks
that the UCSOW report will be supportive of and complimentary to the
·
Linda
reviewed Kotter’s Model (from the first retreat) and
the article 10 Reasons Why Transformation
Efforts Fail by Christopher J. Metzler, Esq.
·
The Case
History subcommittee report is not yet included; it is forthcoming from Veena Das.
·
Student-focused
group:
II.
Feedback on Report
·
J. Stinchcomb – very strong; to-the-point
·
S. Kinglsland – comprehensive, very strong
(needs editing to eliminate redundancies)
·
B. Hawkins/ K. Beauschesne – thus far is strong
·
R. Gillian – pleased and supportive; must share with community
·
J. Jarosz – thorough, well-documented; would
highlight JHU is last of COFHE Institutions
·
K. Giuriceo – excellent; concerned about
length, because it should not sit on
a shelf.
·
S. Boswell –
this report is one that will be hard to put on a shelf
·
W. Queen –
comprehensive; thorough – think through ways to make sure this does not sit on
shelf. Strategize how to present to
coalition because report is so thorough.
·
E. Stokes –
(referred to pg. 13 & 18 of report) carefully communicate the understanding
of the recommendations
·
L. Thompson –
very pleased; possibly set up a museum-type exhibit for people to walk through
and understand the needed transformation; data speaks for itself; emphasize
this is not just about women – it is everyone’s issue. Make exhibit visible until transformation is
achieved.
·
F. Dominici – supportive of report; emphasize how to work with
administration on making Deans & Directors accountable for transformation
III.
Changes
Proposed to Final Draft Report
·
There should be an opening statement in first page of overall report
·
and in Executive Summary that the intention is to produce
transformational
·
change.
·
Must make clearer how to establish leadership buy-in and
·
accountability.
·
Add to the section on "What is important to preserve" the
University
·
values statement, and something on JHU reputation for leading innovation
for
·
change. (not social change).
·
Eliminate phrases like "it is imperative".
·
Pg. 9, first paragraph, refers to Homewood Campus being last in faculty
diversity (refers to 20 years ago). May
need to remove sentence because faculty report shows improvement.
·
Recommendation
Item 6 - No less than 50% of all Full Professors
and Endowed Chairs should be women until equity is achieved in the proportion
of women faculty across the University by division. This representation should also be reflected
on the Board of Trustees.
·
Recommendation Item 9 – Funding
Request: should include new
hire, benefits, retention, scholar programs, providing resources for an office
to monitor implementation
·
Important to
address the devaluation of women in staff positions across the University, and
how to hold department chairs accountable for civility (Section III of
handout titled “UCSOW 9/05 Draft Report”)
·
Include all
recommendations in Executive Summary
IV.
Action Items
Note: all changes and additions to the report are
to be made this week.
1)
Emma Stokes will write a framework for goals on p. 13 that provides a
guide to the reader.
2)
Emma Stokes will identify ways that the report can be more interactive
and self-reflecting.
3)
Lindsay Thompson and Emma Stokes will make a stronger highlight about
these initiatives being likely to benefit men and families as well as women,
and that
4)
Lindsay Thompson will add to the report a statement about American
universities losing ground in technology and in the social competencies that
enhance value..
5)
Kathy Beauchesne will add to the section on
"What is changing" a statement about the 21st Century workforce's
changing social, economic, technological and demographic factors, and the
explosion of women into the workforce.
6)
Julie Morgan will draft a recommendation for the Leadership section on
Trustees, and a final recommendation in this section that "
7)
Emma Stokes and Lindsay Thompson will draft the section of leadership
recommendations on a.) Activating
prestigious positions such as Endowed Chairs and recruiting women faculty for
these chairs and b.) Bold funding for
senior women scholars and their programs
8)
Lindsay Thompson (chair), Emma Stokes and Ilene Busch-Vishniac: In section III on climate and civility, revise
these recommendations; statements need to be more concise, and particularly
recommendations 1 and 3 in the summary list, need to establish ways to measure
progress, set goals. Also add statement
that leaders should be evaluated in terms of equity and civility, and there
should be 360 degree reviews of Deans and Directors, with executive coaching to
"improve" behaviors. Another
recommendation was that there should be periodic, confidential/anonymous
evaluations of the climate in every Division that should be part of a regular
climate evaluation, and, finally, there should be an Ombuds
Office to investigate and mediate.
9)
Linda
Fried: Update and distribute changes to
UCSOW 9/05 Draft Report summary.
10) Kathy and Charlene are reviewing recommendations
from WorkLife regarding benefits.
11)
ALL: Linda asked for help in
editing/strengthening the section on climate.
Committee was asked to send recommendations to Julia (jmorgan@jhu.edu ) and Linda (lfried@jhmi.edu)
12)
Cathy will edit the case for change and finalize all data.
13)
Emma and
Francesca will contact some individuals to obtain and work on a model for
wording the Funding Request
14) Ray (Page 20, Table 4) –to develop wording (using Kotter’s model on communicating) for a new second bullet
regarding communicating the report and its recommendations.
15) The full committee will meet again on October 6,
2005 from 8:30-10:30 a.m. and include new changes for the report and complete
discussion of remaining agenda items.
Nicole will reserve a location either at
16) Jo Ellen will assist with technical (graphic arts)
packing of final report
Next Steps
1.
We will
review final document, which will be edited and distributed beforehand, and
discuss implementation, staging, accountability and sustainability.
2.
Linda and Ray
will meet prior to forwarding the draft report to the Guiding Coalition for
their review
3.
Linda and Ray
will meet with the Guiding Coalition
3.
The Committee
will meet with the Guiding Coalition shortly after the October 6, 2005 meeting.
Handouts:
·
Agenda
·
UCSOW Case
for Change (L. Fried)
·
Funds for
Women Faculty Created at Major Research Universities (F. Dominci)
·
Executive
Summary – Draft 9/15/05 (L. Fried)
·
UCSOW 9/05
Draft Report (L. Fried)
·
UCSOW Tables
6 and 7 on Faculty and Staff Diversity (C. Lebo)
·
Staff
Committee 2005 (C. Lebo)
·
Student
Subcommittee Report and Recommendations (S. Kingsland)
·
Faculty
Subcommittee Report and Recommendations (F. Dominici)
·
UCSOW Final
Draft Report (L. Fried/ J. Morgan)
·
Perspectives
on Gender-Related Obstacles for Women Staff and Faculty from the Office of
Human Services – December 1, 2004
Next
Meeting:
UCSOW Full Committee
October 6, 2005
Location TBA
8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.