National Women's Law Center

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS IN EDUCATION: WHY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN EDUCATION REMAINS ESSENTIAL

Education is widely recognized as the gateway to economic security and opportunity -- particularly for women, whose wages persistently lag behind those of their male counterparts. Indeed, in a rapidly changing economy requiring increasing levels of technical expertise, having a post-high school education has become more and more important in obtaining a well-paying job. Yet the access of girls and women to educational opportunities continues to be limited by sex discrimination at all levels of our educational system, from elementary and secondary school through college and post-graduate programs. Until all vestiges of these inequities are eliminated, affirmative measures to level the educational playing field remain critical for women and their families -- and for our nation as a whole, which cannot afford to be deprived of the full potential of half its population.

BARRIERS TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN EDUCATION REMAIN PERVASIVE

For most of our nation's history, the doors of many of our nation's finest educational institutions were firmly closed to women. Until the 1970's, many private institutions, as well as state schools funded by tax dollars, systematically excluded women from admission, and from enrollment in particular programs, simply because of their sex. Even though sex discrimination in federally-funded education was finally outlawed with passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, women's educational opportunities are still limited, and women lag behind by many measures. For example:

Financial Aid to Women Is Limited

Limitations on financial assistance have played an important role in foreclosing educational opportunities for women, and continue to do so. Today, the average size of awards to female students is smaller than the average for their male counterparts.⁽¹⁾ Women are also disproportionately affected by limits placed on financial assistance for part-time and re-entry students, who are more likely to be women.⁽²⁾

In addition, women are denied access to entire classes of scholarships designed exclusively for men, many for study in fields in which men already have a participation advantage. For example, colleges and universities have provided scholarships and fellowships for "deserving" men to pursue careers in medicine⁽³⁾, male mechanical engineering students who are members of the Sigma Chi Fraternity⁽⁴⁾, men from New Jersey⁽⁵⁾, men who attended certain high schools⁽⁶⁾, and others.⁽⁷⁾

Standardized Testing Unfairly Hurts Talented Female Students

Standardized tests, including the SAT and PSAT, play a decisive role in determining which college a student attends and whether she receives scholarship money. Unfortunately, these tests are flawed assessment tools: although these tests are designed to be an indicator of future performance, young women earn higher grades in high school and in college than boys,⁽⁸⁾ while consistently scoring below boys on standardized tests.⁽⁹⁾ In addition to evidence of gender bias, studies have documented racial, ethnic, and cultural biases in these tests.⁽¹⁰⁾ Nevertheless, these tests are still used in awarding critical scholarship money and have an enormous impact on girls' educational opportunities: boys get the majority of scholarships based on SAT and PSAT test scores, receiving, for example, an estimated $15 million of the $25 million awarded yearly by the National Merit Scholarship Corp.⁽¹¹⁾

Women Face Barriers in Math, Science and Other Nontraditional Areas, and in Attainment of Advanced Degrees

While women now comprise just over half of undergraduates nationwide, they remain excluded from or underrepresented in key nontraditional areas of study, such as engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences. The relative absence of girls and young women in math and science programs has important implications for the career paths they pursue as adults. Girls without math and science backgrounds are less likely to pursue professional careers and therefore less likely to be prepared to enter positions that will provide them with the earning potential necessary to support their families.

Gender differences in math and science grow as students approach secondary school. In third grade, girls think they are good in math in numbers equal to boys, but by high school, girls have begun to doubt strongly their confidence in math.⁽¹²⁾ Once in high school, girls are less likely than boys to take the most advanced math or physics courses,⁽¹³⁾ and even young women who are highly competent in math and science are less likely to pursue scientific or technological careers.⁽¹⁴⁾
Women receive only about 16% of undergraduate and 11% of doctorate degrees in engineering; less than 22% of doctorate degrees in math and physical sciences; 28% of undergraduate and 15% of doctorate degrees in computer and information sciences.⁽¹⁵⁾ By contrast, women continue to earn the largest proportion of degrees at all levels (associate through doctoral degrees) in fields they have traditionally dominated, such as health professions (which includes nursing, physical therapy and health administration) (83%) and education (77%).⁽¹⁶⁾
The rate of movement of women into nontraditional fields of study has been slow. The proportion of degrees earned by women in the physical sciences increased between 1984-85 and 1992-93 by only 4 percentage points, and women's share of engineering degrees increased by only 2 percentage points during the same period.⁽¹⁷⁾
Although the number of women receiving bachelor's and master's degrees has been steadily rising, women still receive only 38.5% of doctoral and 40% of all first-professional degrees.⁽¹⁸⁾

Women Hold Lower Ranking College Faculty Positions With Lower Pay

Women are still nowhere near achieving parity in faculty positions in higher education. They are concentrated in the lower ranks of faculty, and their salaries lag behind those of their male counterparts. Indeed, most of the recent gains for minorities and women are among visiting staff and temporary lecturers, not full-time staff.

Women were approximately one-third of all full- and part-time faculty employed by U.S. colleges and universities in 1992, and only 18% of all full professors. By contrast, half of all lecturers were women. And 41% of all female faculty were employed part time, while only 29% of male faculty were part time.⁽¹⁹⁾
Women of color have made even smaller gains, comprising only 1.5% of full-time professors nationwide.⁽²⁰⁾
Women faculty members continue to earn lower average salaries than their male counterparts at all levels. A survey released by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in April 1996 found that the salary gap between male and female university professors has remained constant, with men receiving about 30% more than women, even after adjusting for differences in age and hours worked.⁽²¹⁾
Women in academia remain concentrated in certain departments. For example, nationwide, women make up nearly all of the faculty in nursing (98%), but only 6% in engineering.⁽²²⁾ Stanford University reported in 1993 that in 11 departments it had no women faculty, and in 30 departments (43% of all departments) it had no tenured women faculty.
Nationwide, women faculty members are less likely than their male counterparts to have tenure or to hold tenure-track appointments. The AAUP survey found that less than 50% of all female faculty had tenure status, compared with 72% of their male peers.⁽²³⁾

Athletic Opportunities for Young Women Are Limited

While women are over half of undergraduates in our colleges and universities, their athletic opportunities are still severely limited. The availability of athletic scholarships dramatically increases young women's ability to pursue a college education, and helps them develop self-confidence and critical leadership skills. Nationwide, women are only 37% of all college varsity athletes. Female athletes receive 38% of athletic scholarship dollars, 27% of recruiting dollars, and a mere 23% of overall athletic operating budgets.⁽²⁴⁾

Sexual Harassment Is Pervasive

Sexual harassment is widespread in schools, affecting both girls and boys. A study commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation found that 81% of students surveyed had experienced some form of sexual harassment. Girls experienced harassment at a higher rate than boys -- 85% versus 76%, respectively.⁽²⁵⁾ Girls reported that their experiences had a stronger emotional impact, causing them to lose interest in school and diminishing their academic performance.⁽²⁶⁾ Unfortunately, harassment is found at every level of education -- from elementary school to postgraduate programs -- yet our schools have failed to respond with appropriate policies and procedures.⁽²⁷⁾ The AAUW report demonstrates that sexual harassment has become a part of school culture, further alienating girls and young women from our educational system.

One recent example is a case involving a 10 year old girl named LaShonda, who was subjected to sexually explicit, physically intimidating conduct by a boy in her class over a period of several months. Despite repeated complaints to her teacher and the principal, and a marked deterioration in LaShonda's school performance and emotional health, school officials took no action to protect her or discipline the boy, and his actions increased in severity until he finally was charged with and pled guilty to sexual battery. This case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, is pending in federal court.⁽²⁸⁾

Treatment of Girls in the Classroom Is Unfair

A recent report by the AAUW highlights the many ways our educational system fails to meet girls' needs, starting early in elementary school. The study found that girls receive significantly less attention from classroom teachers than do boys. It also found that the contributions and experiences of girls and women are still marginalized or ignored in many textbooks.⁽²⁹⁾ The study found that for these and other reasons, girls' self-esteem and self-confidence plummets as they reach adolescence.⁽³⁰⁾ Unfortunately, the low self-esteem, negative body image and depression that begin at early adolescence often do not disappear as girls mature.⁽³¹⁾

Young Women Are Channelled Out of Important Vocational Education Opportunities

In vocational education and training, women continue to be tracked into traditional, lower paying fields in the "pink collar" sector, such as nursing and cosmetology, while men are directed into areas such as construction or repair technology, fields that historically have provided higher wages and greater opportunities for upward mobility. According to a 1994 study, males comprised 77% of students enrolled in vocational programs in engineering, transportation, mechanics and construction, while women were over 70% of students in programs in health and occupational home economics.⁽³²⁾

Moreover, young women have very few role models in the nontraditional areas: women teach 98% of consumer and homemaking courses, and 69% of office occupations classes, traditionally female courses of study, while only 4% of industrial arts instructors, and only 6% of trade and industry instructors, are women.⁽³³⁾ In addition, young women often face overt sexism and harassment when they do choose a nontraditional course of study, which causes many of them to abandon such courses and thereby to lose the opportunities they offer for greater earning power.⁽³⁴⁾

Older Women Students Face Special Barriers

Women are disproportionately represented among college students over the age of 24, many of whom interrupted or delayed their college education due to family responsibilities. Older women students often face special obstacles to completing their degrees, such as scheduling conflicts among classes and job and family responsibilities, as well as extra financial burdens.⁽³⁵⁾

WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WOMEN IN EDUCATION?

Affirmative action programs for women in education include a variety of measures aimed at helping women overcome obstacles, like those outlined above, that have been placed in the path to equal educational opportunity. Such measures include:

Financial Assistance

To remedy the persistent effects of discrimination against women in education, federal, state, local, and private entities have developed a considerable network of gender-based scholarships and financial assistance.⁽³⁶⁾ For example, the National Science Foundation finances graduate fellowships for women in computer and information science. By targeting women for financial assistance, these kinds of scholarships serve to ameliorate some of the discrepancies in financial assistance and admissions that have been caused by past discrimination, and support women seeking to enter historically male-dominated fields.

Outreach, Recruitment and Development Programs for Students and Faculty

Other affirmative measures for women students include a variety of programs to prepare and motivate girls and women for study in non-traditional fields, such as college outreach programs to high school and junior high girls to encourage them to consider engineering and other non-traditional career options; summer residential math and science "institutes" on college campuses and research internships for women interested in pursuing careers in math and science; programs to recruit and prepare women for graduate study, such as financial support for women entering graduate programs after interrupting their education to raise a family; and travel and support funds to enable women in academia to attend professional workshops and conferences.

For women faculty, affirmative action includes faculty development programs such as research grants and fellowships, mentoring programs, and temporary faculty appointments for qualified women in disciplines such as engineering and chemistry where women remain severely underrepresented, as well as the use of flexible goals and timetables (not quotas) for measuring improvements in the hiring and promotion of qualified women faculty members.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN EDUCATION HAS

DEEP ROOTS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY
It is not surprising that disparities and disadvantages for female students continue to be pervasive, in light of the long history of second-class treatment accorded to girls and women by our nation's educational institutions. For example:

Girls were once excluded from many elementary and secondary educational opportunities. Public schools in New England excluded girls altogether until the late 18th century. When public schools finally did become co-ed, many in both the North and the South forbade attendance by African-American students of either sex.⁽³⁷⁾
Sex segregated programs at the elementary and secondary education level traditionally limited girls' horizons by, for example, assigning boys to shop and girls to home economics classes, regardless of a student's interests. Similarly, extra-curricular programs were segregated by gender: girls traditionally were steered toward cheerleading and Future Homemakers of America, while boys were directed toward athletics and career-oriented activities such as Future Farmers of America.⁽³⁸⁾
Many public school buildings built before 1950 had separate entrances for boys and girls, and some of these buildings remain in use today -- their separate entrance signs, engraved above the doors, a continuing reminder of discriminatory attitudes that were widely accepted until relatively recently.⁽³⁹⁾
Women were not admitted to Harvard (which opened for men in 1636) until 1977; to Princeton and Yale until 1969; and to the University of Virginia until 1970. For many years, Stanford University admitted only one woman student for every three men.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Some state schools have continued to exclude women even in the 1990's: The Citadel and Virginia Military Institute, both public colleges, only recently ended their male-only admissions policies after a long legal battle resulting in a June 1996 Supreme Court decision that held these policies to be unconstitutional.

Professional schools traditionally placed strict limits on the enrollment of women as well. Until 1945, many medical schools had a female student quota -- a ceiling -- of 5%. Harvard did not admit women to its medical school until 1945, its law school until 1950, and its business school until 1963.
Many colleges and universities required women students to have stronger qualifications than men to be admitted. For example, as late as 1970, the University of North Carolina stated that the "admission of women on the freshmen level will be restricted to those who are especially well qualified." For many years, schools such as the University of Michigan and Cornell University required higher test scores and grade point averages for the admission of women.

In light of this history, it would be unrealistic to expect deeply-rooted attitudes and practices that disadvantage girls and women to disappear overnight; indeed, many teachers and educational administrators who are responsible for educating our young people today were themselves educated at a time when discriminatory practices were the norm. In short, there is not yet a truly level playing field for girls and women, and until there is, affirmative measures to open up opportunities for female students and improve their learning environment remain essential.

WHY ENSURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN IS SO CRITICAL

Education Is the Key to Economic Security for Women and Their Families

A good education is increasingly critical to success in competitive job markets. For women, this is especially important, since women on average earn less than men even when they have equivalent amounts of education; for example, on average a woman with some college experience earns less than a man without a high school diploma.⁽⁴¹⁾

Moreover, well-paying employment is increasingly important to a broad spectrum of American women. Some 58% of American women age 16 and over are either in the workforce or looking for work, compared with only 34% in 1950.⁽⁴²⁾ The vast majority of these women work outside the home in order to support themselves and their families; indeed, many of these women are the sole support of their families.⁽⁴³⁾ More than half of employed women in a 1995 study by the Whirlpool Foundation provided at least half their household's income; among employed women in married couples, almost half (48%) said they contribute half or more of their families' income.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Thus, women's earnings are not merely "supplemental"; they are a critical component of the family's income.

Other Benefits Flow to Society As A Whole

Eliminating educational barriers for women produces other important benefits for society as well. For example:

When women move into nontraditional fields, employers have a larger and more diverse pool from which to draw their workforce. Businesses have learned that this enhances productivity and performance in the changing marketplace.
The opening of increased opportunities for women in graduate and professional fields has broad ramifications as well. For example, the increased number of women in the criminal justice system, including judges and prosecutors, has coincided with improved handling of domestic violence cases, which benefits all members of the family and the community who are affected by violence in the home. And the rise of women in the medical sciences has been accompanied by an increased focus on research relating to breast cancer and other critical women's health issues.

In sum, programs that enable women to overcome barriers to their educational advancement are critical to women and their families, and to our nation as a whole. As we face the 21st Century, our commitment to these measures is more important than ever.

The National Women's Law Center is a non-profit organization that has been working since 1972 to advance and protect women's legal rights. The Center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including child support, employment, education, reproductive rights and health, child and adult dependent care, public assistance, tax reform, and social security with special attention given to the concerns of low income women.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Digest of Education Statistics 1996, table 312.

2. Id. at table 174.

3. George Groff and Margaret Gross Scholarship offered by Bucknell University.

4. Lewis Frederick Lyne Jr., Mechanical Engineering Scholarship, offered by Bucknell University.

5. The New Jersey Student Aid Fund, offered by Middlebury College.

6. The Duncan School Memorial Scholarship, offered by Vanderbilt.

7. For example, the University of Maryland offers male residents of Baltimore City or Charles County financial aid through the Vivian F. Roby Fund.

8. American Association of University Women [AAUW], How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education, 54 (AAUW Educational Foundation and the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, 1992).

9. For example, in 1996, boys scored an average of 39 points higher on the combined SAT score. College Board, 1996 Profile of College Bound Seniors.

10. Katherine Connor and Ellen Vargyas, The Legal Implications of Gender Bias in Standardized Testing, 7 Berkeley Women's L.J. 13, 25 no. 59 (1992).

11. "Do College-Bound Girls Face a Disadvantage When They Sit Down and Take the SAT Test?" 4 CQ Researcher 488, (1994).

12. Dosset et al., The Mathematics Report Card, 17-M-01 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1988).

13. National Science Board, Indicators-1989; AAUW, How Schools Short-Change Girls at 26. See also R. Blank and M. Dalkilis, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 1990 (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State Officers, State Education Assessment Center, 1991).

14. 14. Ornstein, School Girls: Young Women, Self Esteem and the Confidence Gap (1994) at 23.

15. U.S. Department of Education, supra n. 1, at table 244.

16. L. Knopp, Women in Higher Education Today: A Mid-1990's Profile, American Council on Education Research Brief (1995) at 4-5.

17. Id.

18. U.S. Department of Education, supra n. 1, at tables 255 and 266.

19. American Council on Education [ACE], supra n. 16, at 7.

20. Almanac of Higher Education (U. of Chicago Press 1994) at 65.

21. American Association of University Professors [AAUP], Academe, March-April 1996,

at 1, 21-22.

22. ACE, supra n. 16, at 7.

23. AAUP, supra n. 21, at 33.

24. National Collegiate Athletics Association, Gender Equity Study: Summary of Results (1997).

25. AAUW, Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on Sexual Harassment in America's Schools, (1993).

26. Id. at 15.

27. Nan Stein, Nancy Marshall, and Linda Tropp, Secrets in Public: Sexual Harassment in Our Schools, 2 (NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and Wellesley College Center for Women, 1993).

28. See Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 74 F.3rd 1186 (11th Cir., 1996).

29. AAUW, supra n. 8, at 62.

30. Id.

31. A. Peterson, P. Sarigiani, and R. Kennedy, "Adolescent Depression: Why More Girls?" Journal of Youth and Adolescence 20 (April 1991): 247-71.

32. National Coalition for Women & Girls in Education, Empowering America's Families: Documenting the Success of Vocational Equity Programs for Women and Girls (March 1995).

33. AAUW, supra n. 8, at 42.

34. Suzanne Silverman, Alice Pritchard, Building Their Future: Girls in Technology Education in Connecticut, 5 (Vocational Equity Research, Training and Evaluation Center, 1993).

35. ACE, supra n. 16, at 2-3.

36. Over 1,500 scholarships are primarily or exclusively targeted for women. Gayle Schlacter, Directory of Financial Aids for Women 1995-7 (1994).

37. Susan McGee Bailey, Patricia B. Campbell, "Gender Equity: The Unexamined Basic of School Reform," Stanford Law & Policy Review, 75 (Winter 1992-93).

38. Id. at 76.

39. Id.

40. Task Force on Women in Higher Education, Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects 359 (Mariam K. Chamberlain ed. 1988) note 7, at 5.

41. 9 to 5, "Profile of Working Women," at 1 (1994-95 edition) (data compiled from United States Department of Labor and Census Bureau statistics).

42. Id.

43. National Committee on Pay Equity, "Women, Family, Future Trends: A Selective Research Overview," Winter 1996, at 1.

44. Whirlpool Foundation, "Women: the New Providers," a study prepared by the Families and Work Institute with Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. (May 1995).