Because a university was involved, the U.S. Labor Department forwarded the complaint that FOCUS on Equal Employment for Women lodged against the University of Michigan to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. To complainant Jean L. King's "surprise and delight," HEW sent an investigative team to campus in mid-August-—"like the speed of light" for a bureaucracy, she recalled. But King was disappointed when the HEW investigator did not seem to understand the nature of university employment procedures (see Document 8).
So she phoned John Hodgdon, the head of the Chicago regional office of HEW's Office of Civil Rights, and complained about the approach of the investigators. A new investigator, Don F. Scott, was assigned and his team returned to campus about 10 days later. (See Document 8)
In this letter, mailed to University President Robben W. Fleming a month later, Scott outlined the findings of his investigation, concluding that "the University of Michigan is not complying" with the government's prohibition on sex discrimination by federal contractors. "In order for the University to continue its eligibility to receive government contracts, you must provide a written commitment to stop the discriminatory treatment of women, to erase the effects of this discriminatory treatment and to develop and implement an amended Affirmative Action Program which will insure equal opportunity for women in employment and in treatment during employment with the University." The amended Affirmative Action Program, it stated, "must include detailed plans" to take several specified actions by specified dates. The program, the letter concluded, "must be submitted within 30 days of the date of this letter."
Scott's letter reflects how carefully the Michigan women marshaled their available evidence as well as the seriousness with which the second team of HEW investigators approached their task. It details pervasive patterns of discrimination in areas ranging from graduate admissions, faculty hiring practices, the employment of women in non-academic positions, and anti-nepotism policies that in virtually all of the cited cases led to a faculty wife earning less than her faculty husband.
Fleming sent a one-page response to Scott the next day (Document 13B), noting that the University would likely have "points of disagreement, some of which may be serious." He also said it was unlikely that the University could prepare a new affirmative action plan within the 30 days Scott had specified.
It was not until October 13 that the University acknowledged Scott's letter publicly, saying in a press release that its existing affirmative action plan covering minorities was being revised to include women (see Document 14A), but that the plan was not likely to be ready by HEW's specified deadline. The press release quoted from Fleming's letter, but the University did not release Scott's findings.
On October 22, Scott wrote back to Fleming (Document 13C), saying that his office "does not consider your letter responsive to our findings." He went on to say that his office had received a request to clear a proposed $400,000 contract between the University and the Agency for International Development (AID) to help the government of Nepal establish and provide family planning services. Scott said his office would hold up this contract and all future ones until the University provided "specific commitments for overcoming the deficiencies" that HEW had identified.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
the Regional Director
226 W. Jackson Blvd., Room 114
Chicago, Illinois 60606
October 6, 1970
Mr. Robben W. Fleming
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
On May 27, 1970, a letter of allegations on behalf of an organization named Ann Arbor Focus on Equal Employment for Women was forwarded to The Secretary of Labor, Mr. George P. Schultz. The letter of allegations was signed by Miss Jean L. King and Mrs. Mary N. Yourd. The letter charged discrimination at the University of Michigan on the basis of sex.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office for Civil Rights in Chicago was assigned the investigation of the allegations. A team of investigators was on the Ann Arbor Campus of the University of Michigan, August 17, 1970 thru August 21, 1970. The team returned to the campus August 31, 1970 and remained thru September 4, 1970. During the visits to the campus, interviews were held with the representatives of the complaining organization and University of Michigan officials. Data regarding employment practices and individual personnel folders were reviewed.
The findings of the investigation are summarized below:
A. Admission to Ph.D Graduate Level Programs
1. Executive Order 11246 forbids discrimination according to race, religion, sex, age, and national origin in employment. Admission to the Ph.D level of academic training where employment as teaching assistants and research assistants is an integral part of the program is covered under the authority of the Executive Order.
2. The following chart indicates that women are not continuing to work for Ph.D's at the University of Michigan at the same rate as men. Women are well represented on the Masters Degree level. Women tend to decrease in representation on the Ph.D level, while men increase significantly.
3. Interviews with some students revealed that females are being discouraged from continuing for Ph.D training by departmental counseling. The interviews confirmed the allegations from the women's group.
4. The criteria for admission to the Ph.D programs where employment as a teaching assistant or research assistant must be the same for males and females.
The Executive Order requires not only nondiscrimination in this area, but affirmative action to overcome deficiencies and underutilization of women in the University of Michigan's Ph.D level programs.
B. Academic Faculty Positions
Discriminatory hiring practices have resulted in underutilization of women in faculty positions at the University of Michigan. Despite a pool of qualified women applicants and a representative number of women who receive Ph.D Degrees in their departmental specialities, the departmental breakdown of the University of Michigan show marked discrepancies in the number of women available and women representation on the present faculty. Some examples of are shown on the chart below:
Breakdown of Departments at the University of Michigan by Sex Showing the Total Number of Positions in the Department, the Percentage of Females, the Percentage of Female Ph.D's Count[r]y-wide, the Percentage of Female Applicants for Employment for 1970-1971.
Some of the personnel practices which contribute to the absence of women in faculty positions at the University of Michigan are listed below:
1. Department chairmen indicated in interviews that the primary recruiting source for academic positions are professional meetings and conferences. Much valuable employment information is exchanged at these meetings. They constitute a type of "grapevine" method of recruitment. This type of recruiting tends to be covertly discriminatory because to persons who are not part of the "grapevine" most of the information regarding employment possibilities is not available.
Since women are not in the positions of faculty chairman and high-ranking faculty, the "grapevine" method of recruiting tends to perpetuate the present composition of the faculty positions.
2. Applications for employment unsolicited by department chairmen receive very little consideration or attention. In some cases, they are filed away without comment, kept for a year, then destroyed. The University may be overlooking many well-qualified male and female applicants by this practice. However, this practice works mostly against female applicants as their qualifications may not come to the attention of the hiring authorities through any other method.
3. At the University of Michigan, screening committees, faculty committees, and ad hoc committees which are assigned the responsibility for selection of applicants are almost uniformly made up of all men. This may be another factor which has an effect on retaining the sex composition of the faculty positions.
4. Interviews with the department chairman regarding the inclusion of women on their faculties indicated a lack of sensitivity on the part of persons who are crucial to the equal employment opportunities for women. There were indications that persons in the decision-making positions in regard to employment do not use equal criteria in evaluating male and female applicants for employment.
Executive Order 11246 as amended by E.O. 11375 requires that the same qualification for employment be applied to both men and women. Many department chairmen who realize that women are underutilized in their departments do not realize they are required by the Executive Order to rectify the situation by affirmatively recruiting women faculty.
5. The University does not have a written policy regarding Nepotism (Tandem Teams). Confusion has developed because of this, and the various department chairmen interpret nepotism in many ways. It was found, however, that these interpretations work against the female member of the tandem team. See the following chart.
6. The chart shows that in 10 cases of the 11 cited, the female member of the team is paid less than the male member. In only one case is the female member of the team in a tenure position. In that case though she has the same title, she is paid less than her husband.
In addition to the wage differential in the case of the Kolars in Geography, the reviewers found another area of concern. Ann Kolars does not have tenure, while the other Associate Professors do. Her file clearly shows the reason for this: "Deserves a professorial appointment, and would have tenure in a major department were it not for the fact that she is in the same field (and, in this case, the same department) as her husband." and "Because her husband is on the departmental staff we are not able to make use of her considerable skill in all aspects of the departmental programs, but she makes a remarkable contribution in those areas where she can work."
C. Wages Discrepancies Among Academic Personnel
It was reported during interviews that some women faculty members were being paid less than men of the same rank and background.
Some examples of wage discrepancies follow:
1. In one department, a serious wage differential appears. A woman assistant professor has the lowest salary in this rank. She receives a salary of $10,900. The median salary at the rank of assistant professor is $11,525. This woman's qualification as
[p. 7]revealed in her personnel record are equal to or better than her male counterparts. She has published, and, unlike many of her colleagues she had a year teaching experience as an assistant professor at another college. She received her Ph.D at an institution comparable in stature to the institution attended by her male counterparts. Finally, she is one of the more senior assistant professors, having been appointed in 1966. Yet she is earning substantially less than men hired after her.
2. In another department, there was found a case of salary differential. A female associate professor received far less than all associate professors and less than several assistant professors. Her salary, prorated, is $12,800 while the men at the same rank receive $15,600 prorated and $15,500. Two assistant professors receive $13,000 and $13,200.
Her qualifications are impressive. She has an outstanding undergraduate record from a prestigious school and received her Ph.D graduate degree from another prestigious school. She has a "respectable" publication record.
3. The attached letter, Exhibit #5, was received unsolicited from a female faculty member at the University of Michigan. It is a chronicle of events leading to a pay increase of this particular person. It is an example of the University of Michigan's failure to provide equal pay for equal work for its female academic employees.
There are 1,008 job classifications in the non-academic categories at the University of Michigan, 305 of the classifications were reviewed. The non-academic staff at the University consists of 3,415 males and 6,226 females. The ratio is approximately 2 females to 1 male.
It was found that there were 20 job classifications which were almost completely made up of females. The average wage of those classifications was $595.49. There were 25 classifications which were almost totally made up of males. The average salary was $1,049.52. List of these classifications are attached.
This finding confirms allegations made in interviews that (1) There are jobs at the University of Michigan that are segregated by sex, and (2) The "female jobs" are the lower paying secretarial and clerical jobs with little status, responsibility, or opportunity for advancement.
The charts below show two examples of where men and women compete, and there is a clear progression of job difficulty and compensation. As the salary and job difficulty rises, the percentage of men in the job rises.
Office Supervisors Series
|TITLE||MALES||FEMALES||PERCENT OF MALES|
|Office Supervisor I||2||44||4.3%|
|Office Supervisor II||4||28||12%|
|Office Supervisor III||8||13||38.1%|
Assistants in Research Series
|MALES||FEMALES||PERCENT OF MALES|
*NOTE: There is a ratio of 2 females to one male in the non-academic job categories at the University of Michigan.
In other areas and job classifications, it is seen that certain middle to high level positions are the province of males. The chart below indicates a trend to using men in these positions:
|Job Classifications||Number of Males||Number of Females||Percentage of Males|
|Supervisors (Other than Office Supervisors)||44||10||81.5%|
NOTE: Women outnumber men in non-academic jobs approximately 2:1.
Additional evidence of the segregation of certain jobs can be found in the fact that certain areas within non-academic jobs such as accounting and purchasing have very few or no women, except in low-level clerical positions. From the personnel files reviewed, the University is employing several women in low administrative jobs though they have M.B.A.'s and B.B.A.'s with accounting and purchasing experience, who would be qualified for high level positions in these 2 areas.
The following chart is a breakdown of the accounting and purchasing job classifications by sex and salary.
ACCOUNTING AND PURCHASING JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
|Job Classification||Male||Female||Average Salary|
|Assistant Chief Accountant||3||1||1,283.33|
|Assistant Supervisor Accounting||16||3||923.31|
|Sr. Cost Analyst||3||0||906.66|
|Principal Accountant Clerk||4||34||591.02|
|Sr. Accountant Clerk||3||46||513.18|
It was found that women are in many cases getting less pay then men with the same job titles, responsibilities, and experience. This is illustrated by the chart relating to administrative assistants. Equally alarming is the documented tendency toward giving men higher starting salaries than women in the same job classifications. See Chart #2.
A corollary to the above wage discrimination is the discrimination against women in assignment. The assignment situation is documented by the various comparisons of men and women in different job categories found in Chart #1. It is shown by the chart that women are hired originally as secretaries regardless of their qualifications. Records in the personnel folders indicated that all women who processed through the personnel department were given typing tests, while there was no indication that men ever were required to take the typing tests.
Underhiring appears to be the cause of the present job segregation, wage differentials, and promotion difficulties, and assignment problems of women at the University of Michigan. A large number of women with bachelor degrees and administrative or research experience are hired as secretaries of various level, while men with similar experience and qualifications who applied for work at the same time were hired at higher paying jobs with greater opportunities for advancement. The underhiring is particularly apparent when comparing women with bachelor degrees in non-marketable subjects, i.e., English, Music, and History. Relevant criteria for hiring in these areas would be previous related experience. See Chart #3.
Underhiring is related to wage differentials as all regular promotion and salary increases are based on a percentage of the present salary. Therefore, a women who was initially hired at a lower salary than a man may never make up the initial inequity despite many promotions and salary adjustments.
Examples of this are shown in the chart in the Sr. Administrative Assistant's category. Six of the seven men's folders reviewed show the men getting salaries in the top half of the salary range while six of the seven women's salaries show women salaries in the bottom half of the range. The men's and women's folders reviewed were matched for hiring at approximately the same time. See Chart #3.
A related problem and a source of concern and much frustration to the non-academic females at the University of Michigan was the absence of job descriptions. In the light of the allegations of equal pay for equal work, the University should communicate its duty requirements for each job classification with adequate job descriptions.
OTHER FINDINGS RELATING TO DISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
1. In order to comply with the Executive Order, advertising must not only carry the EEO tag-line, but it must not be discriminatory in its content. For example, an advertisement headed, Attention - Student Wives is not in compliance with the Executive Order.
2. The Grievance Committee for non-academic employees has no women. Women comprise approximately 2/3 of the [non-]academic workforce.
The above findings established that the University of Michigan is not complying with the requirements of E.O. 11246 and 11375.
In order for the University to continue its eligibility to receive government contracts, you must provide a written commitment to stop the discriminatory treatment of women, to erase the effects of this discriminatory treatment and to develop and implement an amended Affirmative Action Program which will insure equal opportunity for women in employment and in treatment during employment with the University. This amended Affirmative Action Program must respond specifically to the findings contained in this letter.
The amended program must include detailed plans to take the following precise actions and the dates for completion of the actions.
1. Achieve salary equity between current male and female employees in every job category within the University which are currently occupied by both male and female employees. This will necessitate an extensive analysis of employment records and your analysis must be an attachment to your program.
2. Compensate through the payment of back wages, each female employee who has lost wages due to discriminatory treatment by the University. The payment of these back wages must go back to October 13, 1968, the date on which E.O. 11375 became effective and the University assumed a contractual obligation not to discriminate on the basis of sex. This
[p. 12]also will necessitate the analysis of the employee records of each female employee and a comparison of her wages during this period with male employees similarly situated. This analysis must also be included as an attachment to your program.
3. Achieve a ratio of female employment in academic positions at least equivalent to their availability as evidenced by applications for employment by qualified females for these positions. Specific numerical goals and time tables by department must be included in this program and supported by statistical analysis of female applicant flow and availability.
4. Improve the ratio of female admissions to all Ph.D graduate programs in which admissions are connected with specific employment opportunity such as teaching and research assistantships. Numerical goals and time tables must be presented along with the statistical analysis used in establishing them.
5. Increase the participation by women on committees which involve the selection and treatment of employees both academic and non-academic. Again numerical goals and time tables must be presented.
6. Develop and issue a written policy on nepotism which will assure uniform treatment of tandem teams throughout the University and which will not have the effect of discrimination against the female members of such teams.
7. Analysis the effect of the past interpretations on nepotism and achieve salary equity and retroactively compensate any person who has suffered such discriminatory treatment because of past interpretations of the nepotism policy. The analysis and resulting time tables for these actions must be included in this program.
8. Assure that female applicants for non-academic employment receive consideration for employment commensurate with their qualifications. Assure that the concept of male and female job classification is eliminated through the recruitment, placement, transfer, and promotion of male and female applicants and employees into occupations from which they have traditionally been excluded. Numerical goals and time tables for the achievement of these requirements, supported by statistical analysis must be included in the program.
9. Assure that all present female employees occupying clerical or other non-academic positions and who possess qualifications equivalent to or exceeding those of male employees, occupying higher level positions be given priority consideration for promotions to higher level positions for which they qualify. Numerical goals and time tables are also required to meet this requirment.
An amended Affirmative Action Program must be submitted to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter. We will, of course, evaluate the program you develop to determine wehther or not they appear to be acceptable and responsive to the problems we have identified.
Don F. Scott
Civil Rights Specialist
Office for Civil Rights
[NA]Exhibit #1 Chart #1
[NA]Exhibit #2 Chart #2
[p. 1]Exhibit #3
[NA]Exhibit #4 Chart #4
[p. 1]Exhibit #5
GREAT LAKES RESEARCH DIVISION
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1077 NORTH UNIVERSITY BUILDING
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104
September 20, 1970
Miss Esther Lardent
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare
Office for Civil Rights
226 W. Jackson Blvd.
Dear Miss Lardent:
The following is a chronicle of the events leading up to the salary increase I have recently received. This year, August 1970, I was promoted to Professor at the University of Michigan, and my salary (for the academic year) was raised 28%, from $13,200 to $17,000. I had been told this spring that I could expect a salary increase of 8% at the time of my promotion. The change from 8% to 28% was in response to my repeated and strongly stated threat to file a complaint with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and other Government agencies, charging the University of Michigan with unequal, and lower, pay to women than men.
The sequence of events is as follows:
May, 1969. It came to my attention that my salary ($12,200 for the academic year 1968-69) was far below the median being paid for associate professors. I complained to the Chairman of Zoology, John M. Allen, but he said nothing major could be done about it that year. He then said he had talked to the Dean, and that perhaps something could be done the next year. He stated that there was little that he could do, since half my academic year salary is paid from a sponsored research grant, and that he therefore had no control over the rate of pay. I denied this, pointing out that according to the NSF rulings given in their booklet regarding the administration of research grants, salaries are to be paid at the level set by the University. Dr. Allen invoked this excuse again in 1970 although he never asked whether sponsored research funds were available to meet an increase. Finally at my request the Director of the Great Lakes Research Division, David Chandler, emphasized to Dr. Allen that my salary level is set by the Zoology Department. (My research grant is administered through the Great Lakes Research Division.) Dr. Chandler guaranteed to the Zoology Chairman that the increase in pay recommended by the Zoology Department could be met (that is the half that is paid by sponsored research funds) either from my grant or from general funds in the Great Lakes Division. This effectively removed the source of my salary as an excuse for failure to raise my salary to an equitable level.
March, 1970. The Chairman told me that the Departmental Promotions Committee had recommended that I be promoted to full professor. He also told me that the ad hoc letters regarding my qualifications were some of the strongest
[p. 2]he had ever seen. The Chairman of the Promotions Committee also told me that the committee had been impressed. A few weeks later, Dean Sussman[A] told me that my promotion had passed the college Executive Committee and that it would be sent on to the Regents. He told me the promotion had passed "with flying colors, not like some others", implying that the evaluation by the Executive Committee was that I well deserved the promotion, rather than just squeaking into it.
March or early April, 1970. I asked the Chairman of Zoology, Dr. Allen, what sort of salary increase I should expect at the time of my promotion, as I was applying for a continuation of my research grant and wished to allow enough funds in the budget to cover my salary adequately. He stated that my salary would be set by the Dean, since I was being promoted, but that he would expect roughly 8%.
April, 1970. I had figured out how much an increase of 8% would be. I went to the Chairman and pointed out that this increase would not even raise me to the median for associate professors, much less to the level being paid full professors. I said that I felt my salary was low because I was a woman, and that I intended to complain to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. He said he didn't think that would be necessary. What was my salary? I told him it was $13,200, whereupon he burst out laughing and said he would try to do something. Later in the day he called me to apologize for laughing, but said he couldn't help it because $13,200 was the salary being paid in the department to assistant professors, not to associate professors about to be promoted to full professors.
April or early May, 1970. Dr. Allen told me he had received a letter from Dean Carruth[B] admitting that my salary was rather low, but he didn't think it could be rectified this year. Perhaps it could be raised part of the way this year, and part of the way next year. I answered that this would not be satisfactory, I needed the money this year. At this point I realized that I really would have to file a complaint and so I started trying to get information about salary scales. This information is not available to us department by department, an important point since salaries in Zoology are higher than in the L.S.&A. College as a whole. Rather, the scale reported by the Senate Report on the Economic Status of the faculty is a year old and does not give the range of salaries for each rank. However, through the kindness of someone who had legal access to the salaries in the department of Zoology I found that the highest salary being paid an associate professor was $16,500 (1969-70), [note]I also requested the Director of the Great Lakes division, Dr. Chandler, to talk with Dr. Allen in my behalf, and repeated to him that if my pay was not raised to an appropriate level, I was going to take legal action against the University. He talked with both Dr. Allen and Dean Sussman, recommending a salary for me of $16,500-$17,000.
June, 1970. Dr. Allen called me and told me that my salary for 1970-71 would be $16,000. I pointed out that this was the minimum being paid to full professors in the Department, and he denied this. He stated the lowest salary paid to a full professor was $15,500. Although this is directly contrary to the information I had obtained independently, I have no way of checking the veracity of his statement.
A few days later I called Dean Sussman. I told him I wanted to discuss my salary, and he replied "Yes, I know, it's unfair as hell". But, he said, something was going to be done about it. He then checked the files and came back to the phone with the information that my salary was being raised to $16,000. I said that that was unacceptable, as others in my department with the same or lesser qualifications than I were receiving higher salaries; I stated further that I was planning to write to the Civil Rights Commission complaining of discrimination against women. He pointed out that it was a large increase, and I replied that starting from zero, a large increase still didn't mean equitable pay. He said that the University was hard pressed this year. I replied that I felt that I had made formidable contributions to the economy of the University already by working all these years for such low pay but that I was no longer willing to do it. He stated that something would be done next year. I replied somewhat bitterly that I did not believe him.
I then went on to say that when I threatened to lodge a complaint against the University, I really meant it. I stated further that it didn't make sense to me that a University that failed to pay women equitable salaries should expend so much energy training women graduate students. What sort of a future would they face? Dean Sussman said sadly that probably they would never receive equal pay. He then stated that he would try to do something in my behalf, adding that because of my research record he could make a better case for me than some other women in the faculty. The implication of this statement was that women faculty salaries will be raised to the level paid men only in cases where they complain, and make a good case. The burden of proof falling on the faculty member means she has to be sure she's better than equal before she can claim equal pay.
The next day, or two days later, Dean Sussman called me to say that my salary would be $17,000 for 1970-71. Dr. Allen confirmed this.
I have therefore not lodged a complaint against the University. However I feel that it was only because I was being promoted that I had a strong enough case to be able to press my suit. Even so, my suit would have been unsuccessful without federal and state civil rights laws. Other women with less self-confidence and with less time and energy to spend on the matter will not press for salary increases, and therefore will continue at a low salary level. There appears to be no commitment on the part of the administration to pay equal salaries as a matter of principle.
Please feel free to use my name and salary figures, and to make use of this letter as you see fit.
Margaret B. Davis
Professor of Zoology
AVERAGE - $595.49 PER MONTH
|*Assistant Principal Editorial||1||12||$564.63|
|*Assistant Principal Library||5||48||610.88|
|Principal Account Clerk||4||34||591.02|
|*Senior Account Clerk||3||46||513.18|
|Senior Clinical Clerk||0||12||555.77|
|Senior Receptionist Clerk||0||8||493.79|
|University Library Supervisor||0||12||580.69|
[p. 1]Exhibit #7
AVERAGE - $1094.52 PER MONTH
|Assistant Accounting Supervisor||16||3||$ 923.31|
|Chief SCH. and Machine Operations||2||0||1,023.25|
|Systems Analyst I||4||0||878.30|
|*Systems Analyst II||9||2||1,010.00|
|Principal Systems Analyst||7||1||1,276.19|
|Senior Compensation Analyst||2||0||933.34|
|Senior Clerk Cost Analyst||3||0||906.66|
|*Senior Clinical Assistant||26||0||436.19|
|Senior Administrative Associate||6||0||1,363.54|
[p. 2]Business Office Supervisor
|Supervisor Equipment Stores||4||0||736.09|
|Supervisor Gross Payroll||3||0||1,069.45|
|Supervisor Engineering Lab.||7||0||695.00|