Wednesday, December 29, 2004
MIT's first female president starts work
Earlier this month, a new president took the reigns at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Following up on the decision announced in August, former Yale provost Susan Hockfield began as the first female president of this internationally-renowned technical institution. One fellow MIT administrator was quoted in The Boston Globe as saying that the selection committee's decision to choose a top female administrator was both "extraordinary and historic."
Though Hockfield's selection apparently received widespread support, the focus on gender was not welcomed by all in the MIT community. The MIT on-line newspaper, The Tech, ran an article about a student-attended "town hall" that happened before the decision was made in August. While some students encouraged others to "think of the message MIT would send" by choosing a female president, others rationally argued that "whoever is best qualified" should get the job.
This brings to mind a discussion we had in my fall 2004 Training and Development class. The professor started on the topic of 'affirmative action' in the workplace, in this case writing into policy extra developmental opportunities for women, based on the under-representedness of their gender in top executive positions in today's major corporations. Not surprisingly (to me, at least - though the professor seemed to be caught off guard) it was many of the females in the class who argued most strongly against such biased opportunities for advancement.
Many of them voiced sentiments similar to that of one undergrad in the Tech article: "It could be a bad thing to have a woman if she feels she’s been put there because she’s a woman." This debate warrants more space than this blog post will allow, I will say this: I'll take qualifcation over identity, thank you.
More importantly, Hockfield's academic background is in neuroscience, representing a shift from the traditional choice of an engineering-educated leader at MIT. The press cited this as the recongized need for a shift towards a more integrative, multi-disciplinary approach at MIT, where the health sciences were touted as being more traditionally multi-disciplinary than enginering. Perhaps this 'edge' helped to make up for the fact that Hockfield had only six years of previous experience in acadmic administrativia - not a very long preparation for a president.
Then, there's the humourous approach. I think that this aspect was best summed up by a post on Slashdot, a premiere on-line site for nerds. Under the heading "Big Deal...", one poster noted that "When MIT announces the first robot president, I'll be listening."
Though Hockfield's selection apparently received widespread support, the focus on gender was not welcomed by all in the MIT community. The MIT on-line newspaper, The Tech, ran an article about a student-attended "town hall" that happened before the decision was made in August. While some students encouraged others to "think of the message MIT would send" by choosing a female president, others rationally argued that "whoever is best qualified" should get the job.
This brings to mind a discussion we had in my fall 2004 Training and Development class. The professor started on the topic of 'affirmative action' in the workplace, in this case writing into policy extra developmental opportunities for women, based on the under-representedness of their gender in top executive positions in today's major corporations. Not surprisingly (to me, at least - though the professor seemed to be caught off guard) it was many of the females in the class who argued most strongly against such biased opportunities for advancement.
Many of them voiced sentiments similar to that of one undergrad in the Tech article: "It could be a bad thing to have a woman if she feels she’s been put there because she’s a woman." This debate warrants more space than this blog post will allow, I will say this: I'll take qualifcation over identity, thank you.
More importantly, Hockfield's academic background is in neuroscience, representing a shift from the traditional choice of an engineering-educated leader at MIT. The press cited this as the recongized need for a shift towards a more integrative, multi-disciplinary approach at MIT, where the health sciences were touted as being more traditionally multi-disciplinary than enginering. Perhaps this 'edge' helped to make up for the fact that Hockfield had only six years of previous experience in acadmic administrativia - not a very long preparation for a president.
Then, there's the humourous approach. I think that this aspect was best summed up by a post on Slashdot, a premiere on-line site for nerds. Under the heading "Big Deal...", one poster noted that "When MIT announces the first robot president, I'll be listening."
Comments:
<< Home
The MIT article seems to portray their new president as someone who is genuinely qualified for the job - there seems to be no argument against that fact as she was voted in unanimously. I don't think it was a case of affirmative action in hiring Susan Hockfield. Some people are dynamic enough to rise to the top more quickly than others on their own merit.
I'll agree with you that I would also take qualification over identity, although, sometimes identity (especially when the position is highly visible) is part of the necessary qualification. Sheer force of personality goes a long way in my books.
I'm curious why your teacher was surprised by your class' reaction to her affirmative reaction discussion. It seems to me that logically the gender imbalances in the workplace can't be changed with a top-down solution. Interest in science, math, and technology has to be fostered in young girls before they can gain the necessary qualifications to apply for top jobs in the industry. Teach enough of them early and they'll flood the workplace. Then you'll really see some competition! Did your teacher disagree with this?
Personally, I've been involved in technical and theoretical aspects of film since I was really little. The only barrier I've run into is the attitudes of men currently working in the tech industry. They aren't used to working alongside women and naturally have reservations about my own capabilities. I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm entering an industry where 1% of Hollywood cinematographers and less than 0.5% of technicians are women.
Remember the magic show at HH? The guy I worked followspot with was surprised I was the techie he had been paired with. When I told him I was going to the Arts formal afterwards, he said, "I've never worked with someone who had to run and put on a dress after the show." That was a tame reaction compared to some of the more negative treatment I've received in the past. It gives me a concrete reason to work harder, even though I know I shouldn't have to prove myself more than anyone else. The real solution, again, is education and exposure. Did you also get into this topic in your class?
Post a Comment
I'll agree with you that I would also take qualification over identity, although, sometimes identity (especially when the position is highly visible) is part of the necessary qualification. Sheer force of personality goes a long way in my books.
I'm curious why your teacher was surprised by your class' reaction to her affirmative reaction discussion. It seems to me that logically the gender imbalances in the workplace can't be changed with a top-down solution. Interest in science, math, and technology has to be fostered in young girls before they can gain the necessary qualifications to apply for top jobs in the industry. Teach enough of them early and they'll flood the workplace. Then you'll really see some competition! Did your teacher disagree with this?
Personally, I've been involved in technical and theoretical aspects of film since I was really little. The only barrier I've run into is the attitudes of men currently working in the tech industry. They aren't used to working alongside women and naturally have reservations about my own capabilities. I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm entering an industry where 1% of Hollywood cinematographers and less than 0.5% of technicians are women.
Remember the magic show at HH? The guy I worked followspot with was surprised I was the techie he had been paired with. When I told him I was going to the Arts formal afterwards, he said, "I've never worked with someone who had to run and put on a dress after the show." That was a tame reaction compared to some of the more negative treatment I've received in the past. It gives me a concrete reason to work harder, even though I know I shouldn't have to prove myself more than anyone else. The real solution, again, is education and exposure. Did you also get into this topic in your class?
<< Home
