Faculty Senate Gender Equity Task Force Report

1. Faculty Senate Gender Equity Task Force Report K. Klimek (Chair) History, R. Hernandez-Julian, L. Hathorn, A. Sgoutas, K. Elkins, B. Mathews

2. Motivation: • Census Data show us that a gender pay gap continues to exist. • Making gender pay equity a reality will require action by individuals, employers, and federal and state governments.

3. Motivation, continued: • Some individuals at MSCD had lower salaries than predicted for their field, rank, and experience. • Can this be accounted for by a systematic Gender Pay Gap at MSCD?

4. Gender Pay Equity Task Force Charge • Our purpose is “to determine if there is a discrepancy between genders in pay scale and CUPA percentage; to report these findings and to make recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding said information.”

5. Data • Data from HR on all tenure-track and tenured faculty that includes: • year of hire • tenure status • gender • race • years at rank • department • annual salary

6. Statistics from HR

7. Refined Data • We gathered and collected information on: • First Year Hires • Salary correlation between maiden and married names • And • Dropped everyone who had been an administrator

8. Differences • Percentage of CUPA • Men earn 99.50% • Women earn 97.99% • This difference can generally be accounted for by differences in tenure status and experience. • Let’s look at differences by school, rank, and experience.

9. Differences by School:

10. Male-Female Difference by Tenure Status • Assistant professors • $456.55 • Associate professors • $4,286.70 (p = .023) • Full professors • $3,859.49 (p = .028)

11. Due to many factors • The difference in gender can in part be explained by factors beyond tenure status, such as: • Years at rank • Chair • Field

12. Men and women are differently represented in different departments. Men tend to be concentrated in those departments that have higher average salaries. • One year of data cannot show if women been historically driven out by lower pay or denied tenure at higher rates. In addition, historically chairs have been disproportionately male, so problems in relationships between women and male chairs might be an additional confounding factor.

13. The year of hire is an important predictor of difference in salaries: some employees get hired in good years at high salaries, and that difference tends to persist in the long run. • While there may be no statistical significant difference in the means does not imply that there are not important outliers: there are still individual cases of inequity that are notable and meaningful.

14. Recommendations • Salary determination is nebulous. • For many departments, salary determination is an unknown – new hires and TT faculty are unaware of how to change their salaries. • If we pay 100% of CUPA, we need to pay 100% of CUPA, regardless. • If we have the ability to negotiate, we need to know that.

15. Recommendations, continued • Those individuals who are outliers (who are paid statistically less than their direct peers) should have the ability to negotiate their salaries. • We offer to pass the names of the outliers to the Equity/Parity committee.