Penick 1

Kathryn Penick
Dr. Howe
Honors Writing Seminar
11/11/15
Applying Title IX to STEM Fields in Universities

Without even assigning a specific name, the word University carries a certain weight of
power and privilege. These places of higher education are held in such high regard that the
university approaches hallowed ground; a home for the greatest minds in the world. Historically,
the understanding of great minds that deserve a place in the university have too often excluded
the minds of women. Virginia Woolf both experienced and illustrated this phenomenon in A
Room of Ones Own in 1929. While gender divisions remain today and full equality has yet to be
attained, significant progress has been made through legislation designed to address these issues.
One of the most landmark and comprehensive policies was Title IX, introduced in 1972. Even
with these types of legislation, female faculty in contemporary academia still lag behind in a
number of areas. Such areas include the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM), all of which have traditionally been dominated by men. As these
inequalities remain despite laws designed specifically to combat them, the critical observer must
ask: to what extent has Title IX helped lessen the disparities between male and female
professionals, specifically in the STEM fields? An exploration of why these gaps exist and how
to further minimize them is also in order; while women have equal knowledge to bring to the
table, they are frequently shut out in favor of male faculty. As professors are also protected under
Title IX, female faculty have the ability and means to press for greater equality in their
institutions in order to rectify the historic gender gaps.

Penick 2

Virginia Woolf vividly illustrates the historic disparity in higher education in A Room of
Ones Own. She compares her experiences at Oxbridge, the mens university, to those at
Fernham, the womens university. A combination of the names Oxford and Cambridge, Oxbridge
is an institution of higher education for the most privileged of men. While she does not say so
explicitly, the professors at Oxbridge are, undoubtedly, all men. Woolf reflects on the immense
wealth and power that is directly connected to this University, which is present nearly
everywhere she looks. These characteristics are most clearly seen in the luncheon Woolf attends
at Oxbridge. She describes the food in great detail. So great was this luncheon that by degrees
was lit [...] not that hard little electric light which we call brilliance, [...] but the more profound,
subtle and subterranean glow (Woolf 11). This beautiful luncheon at Oxbridge is in sharp
contrast to Woolfs experience later at Fernham. The womens university is described as being
humble and plain, and with few positive adjectives compared to the mens university. While the
dinner at Fernham was sufficient, and coal-miners doubtless were sitting down to less, it was
nowhere near as rich and brilliant as the luncheon (17). The reader gets a sense of
disappointment in this humble dinner. The mens university clearly has greater wealth and power
in comparison with the humble womens university. Unfortunately, this glaringly obvious gender
inequality has been the status quo for most of history. Men have always enjoyed higher societal
status than women in varying degrees, especially in higher education. A Room of Ones Own
was published in 1929, a time when women had won the right to vote in the United States less
than ten years previously. Yet, forty-three years before the passage of Title IX, Woolf had high
hopes for the future. She takes time to both encourage and challenge women. Forty-three years
before Title IX, Woolf had a vision for women to not only go to university, but to also take
leadership positions in academia. She advocates for women to have room of ones own and five

Penick 3

hundred a year so they can write and create for themselves. Woolf advocated for increasing
freedom for women in all areas without fear of discrimination. Forty-three years later, her words
would take a leap closer to becoming a concrete reality.
In 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments was signed into law. This policy
effectively prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally-funded activity. The text of the
Act reads; No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (34 CFR 106.51(a)(1)). Title IX is
traditionally remembered for its role in making significant progress towards gender equity in
high-school and university sports. However, the original language made no mention of athletics,
as Title IX was designed to prohibit discrimination across the board. To that end, this legislation
applies to students and faculty of all genders in all federally-funded institutions. Title IX is hailed
as a landmark policy in the fight for gender equality in traditionally male-dominated institutions;
while this Act applies to all genders, the aim of Title IX was to rectify the gaping gender gaps in
the opportunities that were available to women.
To that end, the progress made by Title IX has been tremendous, but has arguably not
fulfilled its full potential to promote gender equality to the greatest possible extent. In Recasting
Title IX: Addressing Gender Equity in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Professoriate authors Julie Walters and Connie L. McNeely focus specifically on the
underrepresentation of female faculty in the STEM fields. Even though Title IX applies to
faculty as well as students, these gaps in representation remain. The disadvantages of women
professionals in STEM are manifested in several ways. Women are less likely to be actively
recruited in STEM positions and may face hiring discrimination. Even after being hired, the

Penick 4

levels of compensation for women are often less than men. As the authors point out, even in the
21st century, women faculty members are generally paid less, promoted more slowly, receive
fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions than their male counterparts (Walters and
McNeely, 323). In addition, female faculty are also sometimes subject to sexual harassment in
their workplaces. All these forms of discrimination are illegal under Title IX. The problem is not
that the legislation is lacking, but rather that its enforcement has been subpar. While Title IX is
supposed to be enforced by various federal agencies, numerous studies have shown that these
agencies have not held individual universities or departments accountable for compliance with
Title IX. Walters and McNeely find that one investigation revealed [...] little to no monitoring
by each of the agencies; the Department of Education, charged with administering Title IX,
provided sporadic monitoring, which was the best of all studied agencies (326). When
antiquated ideas about womens abilities and place in academia is combined with lax
enforcement of the policy designed to prohibit discrimination, it is little wonder that inequalities
between male and female faculty still exist today. The authors do bring into question the extent to
which Title IX can really be expected to remedy this disparity. As they themselves write, no law
and its enforcement will completely rectify deeply embedded societal discrimination. However,
Title IX has been called upon as at least a step in the direction of gender equity in academia
(329). Indeed, Title IX has been highly beneficial and a leap in gender equality. In addition,
better and more cohesive enforcement can help to further secure equal gender representation in
faculty already achieved by Title IX.
Toni Feder agrees with this conclusion as she further calls for better application and
enforcement of Title IX in STEM fields. In Applying Title IX to University Science
Departments, Feder quotes various female professors on their suggestions as to how Title IX

Penick 5

can be used to achieve gender equity in university science departments (Feder 19). Chemist
and professor Debra Rolison advocates for actively recruiting female faculty in STEM
departments, which may include accepting the need for employment and admissions quotas.
Sherry Yennello adds that effort should be put into making a more welcoming climate for
female faculty (Feder 20). Finally, physics professor Bernice Durand expresses her support for
increasing the number of compliance reviews and investigations to ensure that universities are
adhering to Title IX on all levels. Rolison agrees when she adds, Title IX has never not worked
to make things more equitable (Feder 21). Ultimately, these women reach the consensus that
with more effective use of Title IX, greater equality for female faculty in STEM fields can be
accomplished.
However, not everyone agrees with this proactive approach of greater enforcement of
Title IX to achieve gender equality in STEM faculty. Patricia Hausman expresses her views in
Feminizing Science: The Alchemy of Title IX, that the underrepresentation of women in STEM
is not necessarily a bad thing that should be addressed through the use of Title IX. She even goes
so far as to call Title IX a coercive method, and implies that it has been abused in the quest for
gender equity. She accuses women pursuing equality under Title IX as posing as hapless victims
of an academic world created of, by, and for men (Hausman 394). She elaborates by insinuating
that reports by female faculty of discrimination in the workplace, unequal compensation, and
gendered expectations of family life are simply myths or common misconceptions that do not
have any empirical evidence to support the claims. In addition, Hausman attacks any attempts to
use Title IX to realize greater gender equality, saying accepting a burdensome regulatory regime
absent data justifying such intervention would set a terrible precedent (397). These measures
include compliance reviews, quotas, and internal investigations, all of which Hausman finds

Penick 6

offensive and unreasonable. Finally, Hausman asserts that Title IX is unnecessary based on her
highly questionable argument that biological differences between men and women explain
female underrepresentation in [STEM] fields (401). Even with concrete evidence to the
contrary, Hausman finds that the natural disposition of females is such that they are not as
interested in STEM areas as men are. She even dares suggest that the enforcement of Title IX
would result in a form of reverse discrimination against men as women force their way into
STEM fields. The reasons that Hausman presents to explain the underrepresentation of women
are ridiculous, but they do raise a serious question: why is it that female faculty are still
underrepresented in STEM, even as women are increasingly earning degrees in STEM fields and
surpassing males in the number of degrees earned overall?
This question is addressed by Kelly Ward and Pamela L. Eddy in their commentary,
Women and Academic Leadership: Leaning Out. The authors reflect on Sheryl Sandbergs book
which suggests that women should lean into opportunities in the workplace. They also examine
how these assertions relate to the world of contemporary academia. The authors find that
women opt to forgo promotion and leadership positions in anticipation of messy politics, sexist
cultures, or irreconcilable challenges between work life and family life (Ward and Eddy). They
add several suggestions as to how create more supportive environments for female faculty,
including developing leadership programs, provide career guidance, and encourage discussions
to promote awareness on gender and diversity. Of course, these proposals will only go so far in
minimizing gender discrimination for female faculty in STEM, but they will certainly help
change the environments of university workplaces.
While I agree with Walters and McNeely in their assertion that Title IX has helped lessen
gender disparities enormously, I also feel that other factors may have been involved in the

Penick 7

increasing numbers of female faculty in STEM fields. Changing culture has undoubtedly played
a role. The modern feminist movement has addressed inequalities that remain in many areas,
including higher education and the institutions of universities. This movement has changed
societys perceptions on the traditional role of women. No longer are women strictly expected to
get married, have children, and stay at home taking care of her family. Some of these gendered
assumptions certainly linger. However, we as a society are becoming increasingly comfortable
with women in leadership positions in their workplaces, as breadwinners in their families, and as
equal partners in their relationships. These changing societal norms are reflected in the numbers
of women pursuing higher education; women are now earning degrees at a higher percentage
than men overall. The way the media portrays women has also been changing dramatically since
the passage of Title IX. Young girls can see themselves as both students and leaders in a variety
of fields, including science, technology, engineering, and math. This representation in the media
affirms the idea that young women can enter any academic discipline and have the ability to
succeed in it.
Therefore, I take issue with Hausmans claims that biological differences between men
and women justify inequality in the STEM fields because, as reputable research has shown, these
claims are not supported. Hausman ignores the larger cultural problem within STEM in
universities and begs off by saying that females simply arent interested. Her fear that men in
STEM may be impacted by proactive anti-discrimination policy is understandable, yet I cannot
accept her assertions that Title IX is a coercive measure and is being abused in this context.
Ultimately, I support the movement to improve the enforcement of Title IX to achieve
greater gender equality, specifically in university STEM departments. Since I was a young girl, I
have always been told that I could grow up to do anything I wanted. As I was born twenty-five

Penick 8

years after the passing of Title IX, I have never known a world where I could be legally
discriminated against because of my gender. Now, as a university student seeking a degree in a
field I am very passionate about, I cannot imagine how I would feel if I was discouraged or faced
outright hostility in my studies. Even though sex discrimination is now illegal, women still face
microaggressions and outdated stereotypes in their schools and places of employment. Therefore,
I advocate for the dedicated enforcement of Title IX not only for myself, but also for women
across the nation who are similarly seeking equality in higher education.
Consequently, we as a society should all care about the enforcement of Title IX across all
areas. Although it may seem that Title IX only impacts a small group of victims of gender
discrimination, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about equality in any capacity. We
should care for our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters to come. We should care that
generations before us have given incredible sacrifices to guarantee the rights women have today.
In addition, there are more concrete reasons why Title IX should be applied especially to female
faculty in STEM. By using the prohibition of discrimination based on sex, greater efforts can be
made to eliminate inequality in compensation of females working in federally-funded
institutions. Closing the wage gap has positive ramifications for very nearly everyone involved.
Taking a proactive approach to the enforcement of Title IX in STEM fields will also catalyse the
breakdown of gender stereotypes, for example that men are better at math, or that science doesnt
come as naturally to women.
The implications of this argument ultimately go beyond any national policy that we can
craft in our legislative bodies. This Act does not exist in a vacuum, nor does the country that
passed it. Title IX is a relatively old policy, yet our society still has not achieved full gender
equality in every aspect. In addition, women in the United States and other western nations have

Penick 9

rights that are lacking in other countries worldwide. If we are right in our convictions that
women deserve equality of opportunity, Title IX should be only the beginning in our fight to
eliminate discrimination.

Penick 10

Works Cited

Feder, Toni. "Applying Title IX to University Science Departments." Physics Today 62.1
(2009): 19-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Hausman, Patricia. "Feminizing Science: The Alchemy of Title IX." Academic Questions
21.4 (2008): 392-408. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Walters, Julie, and Connie L. McNeely. "Recasting Title IX: Addressing Gender Equity in
the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Professoriate." Review of Policy
Research 27.3 (2010): 317-32. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.
Ward, Kelly, and Pamela L. Eddy. "Women and Academic Leadership: Leaning Out."
Chronicle of Higher Education 60.15 (2013): A27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10
Nov. 2015.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. New York: Harcourt, 1929. Print.