Minority, women faculty hiring matches differences in PhD pool

University faculty hiring has roughly matched gender and ethnic differences in the U.S. doctoral pool, while lagging behind percentages for the country's population as a whole, a study released last week indicates. The report, formulated by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research, is the latest in a series looking at affirmative action hiring of faculty at the University and will be discussed today by the Faculty Senate's Committee on the Faculty. It is stull unclear whether faculty and administrators are encouraged by the results of the 122-page document, which compares the number of assistant professors hired relative to the available gender and ethnic pools of PhD's. In the past, only a few departments have been criticized for lagging behind in hiring minority and women. The report, which offers only data and no analysis, contains tables comparing the faculty composition and hiring patterns as of last fall, broken down by gender and ethnicity. Ethnicity is divided into categories for blacks, whites, Asians and Hispanics. The report provides the actual number of new assistant professors hired in the last eight years in these gender and ethnic divisions, compared against the "proportional representation" of these gender and ethnic groups in the pool of U.S. doctoral recipients from 1981 to 1988. The report contains separate data for each University department, including undergraduate, graduate, professional programs and medical schools. Officials will start receiving feedback on the study, as one faculty committee concerned with hiring issues meets today to discuss the study and another prepares to consider it in a meeting slated for later in the month. Last year's report spawned debate within the Faculty Senate over appropriate methods for monitoring the hiring activity of so-called "delinquent" departments. The study revealed that 13 School of Arts and Sciences and three Wharton departments had disproportionately hired males over females in relation to the available pool of candidates for their disciplines. This year's findings, distributed early last month, could provoke similar controversy, and faculty committees are giving the study high priority at upcoming meetings. Finance Professor Morris Mendelson, chairperson of the Faculty Senate's Committee on the Faculty, said members of his committee are holding a meeting at noon today to compose a statement regarding their views on this year's study. Dental School Biochemistry Professor Phoebe Leboy, chairperson of the president's Affirmative Action Council Committee on Faculty Recruitment and Retention, said the report will be discussed at a meeting near the end of April. In the meantime, Leboy said she has mixed reactions to the study's findings. "There are some areas that seem to be doing well, if one defines well as hiring people in relation to their representation in the pool," Leboy said Friday. "There are still other departments that are not doing as well." Leboy said she feels "considerable dismay" over the hiring records of departments in her own area, the natural sciences, and within the medical schools. She stressed, however, that she was extremely grateful the provost has continued to produce the "badly needed" study. Provost Michael Aiken said last week that he has not received any feedback on the latest report, but feels the information is important and will allow interested parties to draw their own conclusions on faculty hiring practices. "The reason we do this is to bring this to the attention of the community," Aiken said. Executive Assistant to the Provost Linda Koons said the report has been circulated to school deans, department chairs, and affirmative action officers throughout the University. She said the report's findings will also be summarized for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Almanac.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.