The Long Road to Pay Equity for Women at Adelphi
Fighting Back: True-life success stories of academic freedom and campus equity. Send us yours, too.
By Deborah Cooperstein
It is clear from the AAUP Faculty Gender Equities Indicator 2006 report and other studies that female faculty members have not achieved equity with their male colleagues. One indicator of this is that women, even when they hold the same rank as men, are paid less. Institutions frequently argue that these salary discrepancies are driven not by gender discrimination but by other factors, such as productivity. But when these discrepancies occur at all types of institutions and across the country—as the AAUP’s study demonstrated they do—that argument is not persuasive. How do we address this problem?
For years, faculty members at Adelphi University have been fighting for pay equity for women, but the administration has been unwilling to recognize inequities in pay. We are now finally moving forward, however, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which has filed a lawsuit alleging that the fulltime female faculty members at Adelphi are paid less than their male colleagues and that these differences extend across all units and ranks.
Background
Adelphi University is a private institution on Long Island in New York State. The faculty unionized in 1973 and operates as a collective bargaining chapter of the AAUP. In 2002, at the request of some of the women faculty members, our AAUP chapter undertook a salary analysis. Although men far outnumber women among full professors at our institution and we have reason to believe that men are promoted to the highest ranks more frequently than women, we decided to focus our attention on pay equity because it is more amenable to statistical analysis. Our study used regression analysis and controlled for division or unit, rank, tenure status, and seniority.
Once we had determined that there was a statistically significant difference between the salaries of our male and female fulltime faculty members, we tried to engage the administration in redressing the discrepancy. The administration responded to the study by hiring its own statistician, who contended that there was no statistical difference between the salaries of women and men. In addition, the administration argued that any salary differential was due to other considerations. But it did not identify what those considerations might be.
In 2004, the administration and our AAUP chapter entered into negotiations to extend the collective bargaining contract. The contract renegotiation was initiated by a petition from the faculty to decrease the teaching load, which, at that time, was the highest among comparable institutions in the area. As part of the agreement to reduce the teaching load by three credits (from twenty-one to eighteen credits a year), the administration established a fund of up to $400,000 a year over which it had control. The money was to be used for merit increases, research release time, salary increases for faculty members whose salaries were “compressed,” and salary increases to meet market demands. The administration refused to consider increases to address gender inequities. It also refused to follow a formula based on a regression analysis, such as that developed at Western Michigan University, to identify faculty suffering from salary compression and calculate appropriate increases for them.
Since the administration refused to address gender-driven pay differences, we decided to structure the annual increases (currently 5 percent) as 5 percent of the average salary in rank. That way, although women’s salaries (and those of other low-paid faculty members) would not improve relative to men’s, they wouldn’t get any worse. Although the administration contended that the compression increases would also help to alleviate any gender differences, our analysis indicates that this was not the case. On the contrary, the raises slightly increased the difference between the salaries of men and women. We think that this happened because there were no formal criteria for selecting faculty for compression increases or for determining the amounts of those increases.
EEOC Complaint
In the first year, the administration distributed approximately $350,000 of the $400,000 fund. In the School of Education, some male faculty members received money from the pool to compensate them for salary compression. Meanwhile, a female faculty member of equal rank and with a similar number of years of service received no increase, even though her salary was lower than the men’s and clearly compressed. After numerous discussions with the dean and the provost, the faculty member hired an attorney and filed a formal complaint with the EEOC asserting that the university was violating the Equal Pay Act.
As with all other complaints, the EEOC conducted an investigation. As part of the investigation, the EEOC requested salary data and other information from both the administration and the AAUP chapter. We gave the EEOC a copy of our 2002 salary analysis and comprehensive information on all the faculty salaries, which we receive from the administration because of our role as the collective bargaining agent for the faculty. The EEOC interviewed some female faculty members to discuss their salary history at Adelphi. From what we understand, the EEOC did multiple analyses of the salary data. An EEOC investigator also met with members of the administration. He reported that one of the questions that he posed to the administration concerned the formula that the university used to determine who was eligible for compression increases. He also asked whether faculty members had ever raised the issue of gender differences in compensation.
In March 2007, after a yearlong investigation, the EEOC rendered its decision. It found that the faculty member who filed the complaint had shown probable cause that discrimination had occurred. In addition, the EEOC concluded that members of a class of full-time female faculty were being paid less than their male counterparts and that this wage discrepancy extended across all units and all ranks. Women appointed to the faculty at Adelphi have continued to be paid lower salaries than men. For example, a male professor appointed in 2006 received a starting salary that was more than $5,000 higher than that of a woman who was appointed during the previous year in the same department. They had equivalent qualifications and experience. That means that, all things being equal, the man will always earn more than the woman and, since Adelphi’s contributions to retirement accounts are a percentage of salary, the man will have more money upon retirement.
Administrative Response
When the complaint was made and investigated, the EEOC had a number of options: it could take no action, decide that there was no basis for the complaint, issue a right to sue to the person who filed the complaint, or find in favor of the complainant. The EEOC’s resolution in March 2007 in favor of the complainant made a very strong statement. Once the EEOC issued its decision, the university administration had the opportunity to propose a plan to resolve this inequity as part of a statutorily mandated conciliation process. Negotiations between the university and the EEOC proved unsuccessful. Finally, on September 25, 2007, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting that the university was violating the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Early in the negotiation phase, the administration replaced the local law firm that it had been using with a large New York City firm. As some readers of Academe may remember, a little over ten years ago, the Adelphi faculty united to oppose a deeply flawed administration. The law firm that represented that disgraced administration (and to which the university paid approximately $5 million) is the same firm that the administration hired to negotiate with the EEOC.
The administration’s unwillingness to make things right for its women is especially disturbing given Adelphi’s student and faculty profile. The institution began as a women’s college, and today approximately 70 percent of our students are women. Over 50 percent of our faculty members are women. What message is the administration sending to our students and alumni?
We’ve wondered why, despite the overwhelming evidence in our favor, the administration has declined to negotiate a solution. It couldn’t simply be the money. We estimate that the cost to the university wouldn’t be exorbitant, and there are many ways to structure a settlement so that the salary increases are spread over a number of years. Hofstra University, also on Long Island, and many other institutions have established funds to make salary adjustments to address gender differences.
Is the Adelphi administration truly committed to women faculty and to diversity more broadly? The longstanding pay-equity problem raises genuine concerns.
Lessons Learned
Even though the salary issue at Adelphi has not yet been resolved, faculty at other institutions can learn some important lessons from our experience.
Press your administration for salary data so that you can determine whether women are being treated fairly. The information serves as a valuable tool for all faculty. As a collective bargaining chapter, we had that information. Such information, however, may sometimes be difficult for faculty to obtain, particularly at private institutions and at those without faculty unions. Nevertheless, it is worth pursuing.
Once you have the data, run a statistical analysis. Frequently, there are faculty on campus who are qualified to do this. We used both an internal expert and a colleague from another institution to determine the statistical significance of the salary differentials. Both came up with almost identical results—a measure of the validity of our analysis.
If the analysis shows a gender bias, bring this fact to the attention of the administration and demand action. It was important to the EEOC that the faculty went to the administration and asked it to address the salary inequities.
The women faculty at Adelphi should have filed a formal complaint with the EEOC in 2002 after the analysis revealed pay inequity and the administration refused to do anything about it. Why didn’t they? Adversarial situations are difficult for many people, and women who are seen as confrontational are often treated differently from men—the men are seen as strong, the women as “difficult.” Moreover, the environment at many campuses, including at Adelphi, could be described as “corporate.” People are expected to do what the administration wants, and faculty members who do not, especially women and untenured faculty members,may not be treated very well. It takes courage to step forward, and the women at Adelphi are lucky that one of their colleagues chose to do so.
In their article in the AAUP Faculty Gender Equities Indicator 2006 report, “Organizing Around Gender Equity,” Martha West, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis, and John Curtis, director of the AAUP’s Department of Research and Public Policy, argue that the faculty must promote gender equity in order to continue to attract talented women to the profession. Our experience has brought gender equity forward as a major issue for our faculty members, and we think that this can only be good for the university.
Deborah Cooperstein is professor of biology at Adelphi University and president of the Adelphi AAUP chapter. Her e-mail address is cooperst@adelphi.edu.
Comment on this article.
|