Stanford Update: The Academic "Pipeline"

In the March issue of DataLine, we began describing the three levels of the glass ceiling: Apprenticeship, the Pipeline, and Alice in Wonderland. In universities, medical schools, and research institutions, Apprenticeship is comprised of undergraduate school, graduate/medical school, and the requisite post-doctoral fellowships or internship/residency. The Pipeline typically begins as a student accepts a beginning "professional" level position: housestaff physician, research fellow or associate, or assistant professor.

The Pipeline is where the decisions and actions that implement and maintain the glass ceiling begin to seem subtle. Close observation shows that in fact the decision-making and actions are not subtle, but are often hidden, or not acknowledged. Although the issues in academic science departments may seem distant from corporate concerns, there is a direct effect on women everywhere, for example, when women scientists are not participating on important committees at federal grant-making institutions about what research gets funded. And in fact, women are under-represented on those critical committees, and when they do participate, frequently receive less administrative support from their departments than their male counterparts.

One of the ways we have learned most about how the glass ceiling functions in the Pipeline is by reading letters -- frequently letters written by women to other women. Most of these cannot be re-printed for a variety of reasons, but primarily the very real fear of retaliation. Still, this letter-reading has been so illuminating that we wanted to let our readers hear some of these voices of women directly.

The following excerpts are from a letter written by Margaret Billingham, head of Cardiac Pathology at Stanford University Medical School. It represents one of the best, most concrete descriptions of the Pipeline level of the glass ceiling for women in science that we have seen.

In January, Dr. Billingham, a tenured professor with almost twenty years at Stanford, told us she found herself startled at the extent to which things have not changed for women at her institution, and, she fears, may actually have gotten worse. She had accepted responsibility as Director of a new entity at Stanford called "Women in Medicine and the Medical Sciences. The following letter to Senior Associate Dean Robert Cutler in May of this year summarizes Dr. Billingham's some of observations from the last six months.

"Dear Bob:

You may be aware that for the last few months I have been hearing stories of gender discrimination from the Faculty women at Stanford. Some of those, I have been able to counsel to some extent. You cautioned me previously that anecdotal reports were not useful and that you needed numbers and you advised me to document these reports; I have been doing this. I have found it personally very discouraging and depressing that apparently little can be done to change the working environment for some of these women because the Administration does not like to 'micromanagement' (sic).

The purpose of this letter is to document what is going on in the Department of Radiology. Because of many rumors as well as the fact that some members of the Women Faculty and Housestaff have come to me as well as to other members of the Academic community, I became concerned by what was going on and decided to find out if indeed there was a problem. I personally talked to 8 women in the Department (I have documented the individual interviews in detail, but because of the importance of anonymity and my promise of confidentiality I will not use names, but will give you a 'composite' report):

In every case there was gender discrimination and in some cases harassment, intimidation, and abuse of power. In general, the women in Radiology have been kept uninformed of research possibilities and have been loaded with clinical responsibilities while the young men are introduced to research opportunities, their work fostered, and encouraged. Women who are known experts in their field and who were recruited because they are experts have been pushed into the clinical realm against their wishes erseded by less experienced males who are backed by the Chairman (this seems to be particularly true in MRI where 4 women are affected by this situation and where the students and residents are encouraged not to seek advice from the women and where their teaching is denigrated despite their experience). There are several instances of women who have had papers accepted at National meetings and who have not been funded to travel while at the same meeting men who had only a poster accepted or even nothing to present were funded -- this is overt discrimination. Women have been required to use their leave time to give invited National papers. There are many instances of barriers being put in the way of women to do research and there is a definite atmosphere of 'exclusion' for women in the Department. Some women in this Department have been dissuaded from being P[rincipal] I[nvestigators] on grants which they have written in order to be replaced by male counterparts. This is not fostering women who are talented; this is against all we are striving for.

Some women have been threatened with the taking away of their bonuses (although they make the biggest contribution to the clinical side), I am told that all the women received the lowest bonus rating although they had written up to seven papers in one year, obtained grants, etc. while the male colleagues who had done neither got higher ratings! Women have been promised money to do projects and then had it refused when the project was completed. Untrue statements (actual lies) have been spread abou women in order to get rid of them. Female secretaries have been interrogated about the personal lives of Faculty until they felt so uncomfortable that they had to leave after many years of service to Stanford. We have lost outstanding women ... who had great promise and expertise ... What is happening? Rather than fostering women, we are actively discouraging and preventing them from building their curriculum vitae, we are intimidating them, undermining their self-esteem, and finally ensuring that they leave Stanford before they become too good as well as discouraging some of the best of them to leave academics for good. In some cases, personal lives have been adversely affected directly because of the situation in Radiology. It is hardly the equitable and nurturing environment that we had been promised.

I have been told also that 'it is very uncomfortable to be a woman in Radiology.' Young macho males make sex-related remarks and relate their fantasies about other women (some in the Department) in front of young female housestaff. The young male cadre have apparently become worse in their attitude toward women because they are presumably following the role model of the Chairman (this in formation was obtained from several women and men who were at Stanford before the current Chairman came). The 'role models' for women in the Department are being forced to leave. I would point out that they are not being recruited by other institutions as you once suggested rather they are being forced to leave by the attitude in this particular Department (I can document this from 5 different women).

It seems apparent that the Chairman is totally focused on his own interests and goals to put himself on the map [at] all costs (including overriding and all the rules of fairness, decency, responsibility to his staff, honesty and gender discrimination rules to meet his own ends. I have only met the Chairman a few times; I have absolutely nothing personal against him, my observations in this letter come from women and some men I have interviewed. I am secure enough of my facts that all I have reported could be confirmed by any formal impartial investigations; if you think I exaggerate, I urge the Dean to do just that. If this matter is not looked into further and redressed expeditiously, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Medical School Administration is serious in its attempt to combat gender discrimination. I realized that we have tried, I, myself, have given hours and hours trying to settle multiple other problems that are ongoing, and that the Retreats and Workshops are excellent in educating people about unacceptable behavior patterns, but they do not substitute for strong action from the top to alleviate the problems.

If the situation in Radiology, which involves many women, is not corrected with real action, then I believe our system is one of platitudes ('we will not tolerate discrimination ... etc.') and one which has absolutely no substance or credibility. Research has shown (Lenhard, Harvard) that 'unless support comes from the top, regardless of the value of the individual concerned, the atmosphere will remain unchanged' because this sends out the message that if you are valuable you can behave as you like. This is the situation in Radiology at this time.

I am disappointed and discouraged by what is allowed to continue in our medical school.

Sincerely yours,

Margaret E. Billingham Director of Women in Medicine and the Medical Sciences"

Billingham's letter produced some media attention, and outrage and concern on the part of the Dean and male faculty members in the Department of Radiology, not for the potential damage to the careers of the women involved, but for the reputation of the Department. Disappearing in the midst of the swirl of damage control is the recent investigation of charges by a male faculty member against the same Chairman of Radiology for unethical conduct. A University investigator found that the charges were in fact valid.

In the meantime, Margaret Billingham has been threatened with a lawsuit for libel, and the women in the Department of Radiology feel as if they are being damaged by the entire process. At a recent department meeting, only one male faculty member asked what the women's concerns were, but he now prefers to remain anonymous.