xt7wh708120j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wh708120j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1990-11-12  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 12, 1990 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 12, 1990 1990 1990-11-12 2020 true xt7wh708120j section xt7wh708120j MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, NOVEMBER 12, 1990

The University Senate met in regu1ar session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
November 12, 1990, in Room 115 of the Nursing Hea1th Sciences Bui1ding.

Caro1yn S. Bratt, Chair of the Senate Counci1, presided.

Members absent were: Barry App1egate, Jim Arnett*, Car1 Baker, Harry V.
Barnard, Raymond Betts, Thomas 0. BTues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Ear1e Bowen,
Ke11y Breitenstein, Joan C. Ca11ahan, Rutheford B Campbe11, Jr., Brad1ey C.
Canon, Ben N. Carr, Edward Carter, N. Harry C1arke*, Jordan Cohen, Audrey L.
Companion, Raymond H. Cox, John A. Deacon*, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Bruce S.
Eastwood*, Raymond E. Forgue, Wi11iam H. Fortune*, Richard H. Furst, Brian
Gu11ette, Lynne Ha11*, J. John Harris, Zafar Hasan*, Laurie Hatch, Robert E.
Hemenway*, Micki King Hogue, Tony H011oway, James G. Houg1and, Jr.*, Kim
Ke11s, Kenneth Kubota, James Kuder*, Thomas N. Lester, C. Oran Litt1e, Sean
Lohman, Ki11 Lowry, Ni11iam E. Lyons, Martin J. McMahon*, Peggy Meszaros*,
Robert C. Nob1e*, Greg 0’Conne11*, E1aine Parker*, C1ayton Pau1, Leonard
Peter*, Rona1d Po11y, Thomas R. Pope, Deborah E. Powe11*, DanieT Reedy, Robert
Rhoads, Thomas Robinson, JoAnn Rogers, Arturo Sandova1, Mike Sparkman, John
Thompson*, Jesse Nei1*, Char1es T. Nethington, Ervy Whitaker, Caro1yn Hi11iam,
Eugene Ni11iams, Pau1 Ni11is, Emery Hi1son, Mary Witt, and Ernest Yanare11a*,

The Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 1990, were approved as
submitted.

The Chair made the fo110wing announcements:

”There is going to be an open Forum on the Library and
Computationa1 Services sponsored by the Senate Library Committee
and the Se1f—Study Office. For those of you who are interested
in knowing about the p1ans that are afoot for the 1ibrary and
a1so p1ans that invo1ve Computationa1 Services, I wou1d suggest
that you p1an on attending. The meeting is Thursday, November
15 in Room 206 of the Student Center, and it is from 3:30 unti1
5:30 p.m.

The second announcement is one that you wi11 receive in the
mai1 in the form of an invitation that 1ooks 1ike a Christmas
tree, but it is to remind you now that our informa1 ho1iday
socia1 is on Tuesday, December 11 from 4:30 unti1 6:30 p.m. in
the A1umni House. I am asking you to p1ease come this year
because it is the on1y time we have a forma1 gathering with the
Board of Trustees in attendance. It wou1d he1p it they 1earn
who their facu1ty are. If you can c1ear some time on your
schedu1e that day and come over to the A1umni House, introduce
yourse1f to the Trustees, ta1k to them about what facu1ty mem-
bers do, maybe we can begin to make some inroads in terms of
their wi11ingness to 1isten to our ideas and thoughts about what
this University is a11 about. It is December 11 from 4:30 unti1
6:30 p.m. at the A1umni House."

*Absence exp1ained

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 12, l990

The Chair stated that there was an information report for the Senate.
Since she chaired the committee that was reporting, she switched “hats” and
talked as Chair of that Committee and explained how the report would be
given. She stated that the report is quite lengthy and comprehensive. The
Senate Council will take up both the Women's Committee Report and the Minority
Report. She stated the Senate Council would recommend at some future time
Senate action where appropriate to implement the recommendations the Senate
has the capacity to implement.

As Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Women, Professor Bratt
recognized all the committee members who worked on the report: Professors
Lorraine Garkovich (Sociology) who chaired the Subcommittee dealing with
hourly staff; Gretchen LaGodna (Nursing), Ombuds for the University this year;
Celinda Todd, Administrative Assistant for the Senate Council Office; Janet
Hurley, Associate Dean of University Extension, who chaired the Subcommittee
dealing with Administrative/Professional staff women; Susan Scollay, Assistant
Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies; Jayne Middleton, who was the
Associate Dean in the College of Medicine but is now enrolled in Law School in
Louisiana; Mary Sue Coleman, former member of the Board of Trustees and
Professor of Biochemistry, is now at North Carolina; Jeannine Blackwell
(German Department); Patricia Murphy, Lead Scientific Programmer Academic
Computing Services is no longer with the University; Jean Pival, retired
Associate Professor in English who chaired the subcommittee dealing with
faculty; John Paul Jones (Geography); Bonnie Cox, Director, Women's Studies
and Humanities Librarian; and Billy Nikitovitch—Niner, Professor and Chair of
Anatomy and Neurobiology.

The Chair feels it is important that the University and the Senate in
particular congratulate itself for its willingness to undertake this in-depth
and very truthful look at itself. Very few institutions of higher education
have ever been willing to commission this kind of assessment of its own
behavior. The Chair feels it took real courage for the University to cooper-
ate and look at itself in that way. She feels now that the problems are
clearly defined as to the impediments that women face in the workplace at UK,
it will be easier for the University to find solutions. The Committee spent
twenty—two months in an attempt to fulfill the charge that was given to the
committee and that charge was to do two things: first of all, define the
problem by investigating the economic, social and political status of women at
the University and the second part of the charge, which was equally as diffi-
cult, was to identify methods for eliminating the impediments that the report
uncovered.

The Chair stated that the committee took its charge very seriously, and it
resulted in a 319 page, two pound, one and three fourths inch thick report.
It is available at the Senate Council office. The Executive Summary was
circulated to the Senate. Copies of the whole report can be made available on
a limited basis. She added that when the committee first met it had a number
of options available to determine how to go about the investigation of the
status of women employed at UK. The committee could have determined what the
ideal workplace would be and measure the University's performance against the
ideal. The committee decided to pursue a slightly different tack. The meth—
odology the committee adopted was to take the reality experienced in the
workplace at UK and measure it against UK's own rhetoric in which UK describes
itself as an equal opportunity employer, a community based on merit and an

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 12, l990

institution that has a special role and responsibility in promoting diversity.
The Chair feels the findings are very disturbing. Regardless of the type of
work women perform at UK, there is a tremendous gap between the University's
rhetoric of equal opportunity and the reality of women's lives. The Chair
stated that each of the subcommittee chairs would give a presentation about
some of the findings which relate to their particular employee group.

The Chair stated that Lorraine Garkovich, who headed the subcommittee
dealing with hourly staff, would begin the presentations. She added that
Janet Hurley would talk about the administrative and professional staff women;
Jean Pival would talk about faculty women; Susan Scollay would provide an
over-view, because the committee was able to compare employees across employee
pools and Gretchen LaGodna would talk about the recommendations.

The Chair recognized Professor Lorraine Garkovich (Sociology). A summary
of her remarks follows:

Professor Garkovich stated that her report was on the
hourly staff and that is the world of almost three thousand
hourly women staff employees characterized, as is the world of
administrative, professional and faculty women, by low pay,
inadequate benefits, and limited opportunities for advancement.
She added that it is a world in which stereotyped notions of
”appropriate" women's work remains strong. As a result, it is a
world marked by an extremely high degree of gender segregation.
She feels this gender segregation is indeed consequential.

Professor Garkovich feels that most importantly for the
Senate, it is a world hidden from most and one they have not
felt. She pointed out some of the facts of the world in which
the hourly women live. She feels it is important to hear about
that world in their own words. She interspersed her presenta-
tion with comments taken from the interviews and the surveys
which were presented.

Professor Garkovich stated that the world of those hourly
women is one of extreme job segregation. Occupational segre-
gation of women hourly staff has persisted with only minor
changes throughout the 1980's. Secondly, it is a world, if one
is a black woman, that will face the double-edged sword of
gender and racial segregation. Black women have even fewer
opportuni- ties than white women concentrated in that work world.

Thirdly, it is a world in which, as the result of the
gender and racial segregation, there are limited opportunities
for advancement. Men and women tend to enter the hourly staff
pool in equal number, but men rise faster. She stated that
given the personnel system of the University, which has
approximately twenty-eight grades for hourly staff, women are
concentrated at the lower end of the scale and men are concen-
trated at the upper end. Women work on a shorter career ladder
than a man does.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

Fourth, it is a world in which the hourly wages for the
work done is extremely limited. She stated that if you talked
to hourly workers, you realize that the pay they receive tends
to be lower than what they would receive for doing a similar job
in industries or in the community. Wages for the hourly workers
at UK are low, but the consequences of inadequate pay are most
serious for women. She indicated there is a gender gap in wages
and salaries. The Committee compared the category of workers
called ”Technical Professional Workers." It is the one category
of hourly staff workers where there are nearly equal numbers of
men and women. Yet, even in this category of workers, there are
significant differences in the earnings of men and women,
technical and professional workers.

One of the respondents wrote: ”After ten years I think my
salary is low. I think by now I should be making at least $6.00
an hour. Over the years, they have given me more to do, and I
have learned the computer, and I do quite a bit of data entry.

I do more typing than ever and with these jobs and the job I was
hired to do, my work load has increased.” Another hourly woman
pointed out that "My job does not pay very well, nor are its
benefits in line with others in similar jobs. I'm a single
parent with two small children whose day care costs are $l00 a
week."

Professor Garkovich stated that not only is there the wage
gap and limited opportunities for advancement to the system, but
there is a tendency to segregate men and women into separate
jobs. She added there are almost 300 hourly workers classified
as skilled craftspersons. From l980 to l989 there have only
been four women out of that 300 of skilled craftspersons at UK.
Clearly, that is a skilled craftsman's job.

Professor Garkovich asked why the problems persist and
exist. The answer was very clearly stated by the hourly workers
themselves. They know why they are stuck where they are. The
answer begins with the fact that the personnel system fails to
fulfill it rhetoric. It functions in a capricious and arbitrary
manner despite its rhetoric of advancement opportunities, proce-
dures for acknowledging substantial changes in job duties and
supposedly equity in job assignments. One of the respondents
gave a perfect example: "I have 20 years plus experience, yet I
received no credit for that experience when I applied for a job
at UK. I have worked for three universities, and I know that
this job is where my skills are. I was making $l9,000 before we
moved to Lexington, and with my raise in July I will barely make
$l2,000. I have been told I can make more money by going up the
ladder and applying for a better position every six months or
so. I will not do that. I love my job. When faculty and
professional staff are hired they are given credit for their
experience, why aren't classified staff? Now that is discrim—
ination."

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, 1990

Professor Garkovich feels a second reason these problems
persist is that there is a pervasive institutional climate of
sexism, racism, and classism. She stated that the University
represents the community in which it is embedded. The
University functions to depreciate women's intellectual abili-
ties, devalue a woman's work, and to disparage women's produc—
tive role in our community. On the issue of sexism this is a
typical comment: ”There is a general attitude that staff
assistants must not mind being called honey or doll or dear. I
personally find this offensive." Another example is from an
hourly staff woman who said what disturbs her are persons who
say: "Oh, you mean I can ask you? I didn't think someone who
answered the phone would know anything about [X]. These people,
usually male assume I am dumb because part of my job is
answering the phone.” Another woman noted this: "I have been
working as a staff assistant VI for over two years. I have a
master's degree. I have actively engaged in seeking new posi-
tions for over a year, and I have been told that I am over-
qualified. I can't understand how I can possibly be denied an
interview on that basis where I have been working for two years
in a job that requires only a high school degree. I know 20
different software programs and I have experienced publishing my
own work, but I can't even figure out how to move within the
University to a job which pays more than $5.69 an hour."

Professor Garkovich stated that the final factor that leads
to the persistence of the problem is there is no perceived route
of redress. Women see no mechanism or opportunity to remedy the
conditions under which they labor. Retaliation, not relief is
the perceived outcome of attempts to make the institutional
system function according to its own rhetoric. Many people know
they would never file a grievance, because they have seen people
black-balled and labelled as trouble makers for doing so.
Professor Garkovich stated there is much more she could say
about the world she described. The gap between the rhetoric and
the reality of career advancement opportunities creates an over-
whelming sense of frustration and anger among staff women. She
added that perhaps the nature and challenge of the report with
respect to staff women is best summarized by one of the respon-
dents, and it is important to remember her words. She said,
"The fact that minorities and women constitute the housekeeping
staff on this campus is highly visible and insulting. Surely,
blacks and women are more skilled. It seems that the skilled
jobs are the domain of the white male. I love UK. I grew up
and dreamed of UK as a child. Surely we can find a way to be a
leader in approving ancient ruins. Just giving someone a job
isn't all there is to dignity and integrity."

Janet Hurley, Associate Dean of University Extension, gave the following
remarks. She was chair of the group that studied the administrative and
professional staff.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

Associate Dean Hurley stated that their first challenge was
to define who administrative and professional (AP) staff were.
Basically they are the salaried employees of the University who
manage and support offices that assist with the academic mission
of the institution. They work until the job gets done. One of
the reasons it was hard to define who belongs in that group was
because the University has so many different ways of defining
them. The Committee found there are at least six ways the
University defines AP staff. One way is the official personnel
system which many think of in terms of professional staff. That
is only one of the six systems, and it is the only one that is
predominantly female. It is 56 percent female. The other five
systems are all systems where professional and administrative
staff are employed at the University of Kentucky by exception.
These are systems that are predominantly male. There are
bilateral systems that the institution uses, there is a presi-
dential pool (usually people who report to the members of the
Presidential Cabinet), there are academic administrators
(faculty who spend more than 50% of their time in
administration) and there is agriculture extension.

Associate Dean Hurley reported that one of the interesting
things is that two out of three women work in the official
personnel system, the lowest paying one. Two out of three men
work in the various ”exception" schemes. About one-half of all
professional and administrative staff work in the official
system. The other half of the administrative or professional
staff are in one of the five exceptional schemes.

Associate Dean Hurley pointed out that in the personnel
system the lowest ranking category, a level l, is l00% female.
The bottom ten ranks are predominantly female; the top ten ranks
are predominantly male. Nine out of every ten women at UK work
below the midpoint (level ll or lower). One out of every two
men works above the midpoint -— at a level of ll or above.

It was pointed out by Associate Dean Hurley there is
another way the institution defines administrative and
professional staff. Every year UK must send a report to the
Federal Government and every professional and administrative
staff must be defined by function. They are defined as either
executive/managerial, or professional. It is the executive/
managerial jobs that are high level decision-making positions,
with budgets to control and people to supervise. Seventy-five
percent of the executive/managerial staff as defined by the
institution by function are men and sixty-six percent of the
professional staff are women. She pointed out there is a very
telling story on the salary data. There are 365 executives or
managerial staff at the institution and about half make more
than $40,000, but four out of every five are men. At the other
end of the scale with people making less than $25,000 four out
of every five are women. In fact, sixty-one percent of all
women professionals make less than $25,000.

In looking at the personnel system she pointed out there

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

was some interesting trouble actually making comparisons because
there were not enough men at the bottom of the scale or enough
women at the top of the scale to compare category by category so
the committee clustered them. The levels one through six, seven
through eleven, and then twelve through twenty-one were clus—
tered. The higher one goes on the scale the more men there are
in the category, and the bigger the differential in the salary
becomes. The first thing the committee looked at was education
and experience and found there was not much difference. Merit
may have something to do with the salary differences, but there
is no way this issue could be documented.

In looking at the presidential pool and other exceptions
(unranked bilaterals and Agricultural Extension), Associate Dean
Hurley pointed out that these are the exception schemes and
there are no guidelines in the rules of the personnel system.
The differences appear to climb and are actually greater.

Another thing the Committee did was study the recruitment
and hiring process for high level administrative positions. She
stated there is an absence of women in the high level adminis-
trative positions. The committee studied the search process for
the last twenty-four positions that were filled at the institu-
tion in the past two years. The search process itself, in fact,
was dominated by male presence. Twenty-three of the twenty-four
search committees were chaired by men. The composition of the
committees was seventy-seven percent male and twenty-three
percent female. The results of the survey indicate that the
University makes no systematic or meaningful effort to insure
that there is gender representation in the various candidate
pools. She stated that of the ninety-five percent of the
committees who received a specific charge, only half received a
statement saying, "Please recruit and identify female candidates
in your efforts.” It was not surprising to learn that no women
were hired in those twenty-four positions.

Associate Dean Hurley stated that if the University is
going to make a serious commitment to the equality of women, it
must begin with the recruitment process. Search committee
chairs must be given guidelines, encouragement and support. The
University's commitment to equity for women must be communicated
to those chairs of the search committees by the highest levels
of the organization.

The committee also looked at some qualitative data that
they gathered through about twenty-five formal interviews and
many informal talks. Through this Associate Dean Hurley learned
of the sense of frustration, isolation, anger, and there is a
tendency for women to blame themselves when there is no reason
for that. The committee found there are women who are high
level administrators who volunteered to be interviewed as part
of the survey process and when it came time to conduct the
interview, they were afraid to be seen talking with the
committee. They were assured that no one would know that the

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

interview took place. There were women afraid to come to the
informal lunches for fear their supervisors would find out.
Associate Dean Hurley learned it did not make a difference if
you were a high—ranking administrator or an entry level, what
made a difference was the fact that you were a woman.

The more Associate Dean Hurley worked with the data and the
committee she learned the report was necessary because a problem
cannot be fixed until there is knowledge that one exists. Now
that it is known there is a problem, she feels there is an
opportunity to work actively for change at UK and to question
the values, reexamine the policies and procedures, to recognize
the needs of women and to reshape the institution for the future.

Emeritus Professor Jean Pival (English) was the chair for the Faculty
Subcommittee. A summary of her remarks follow:

Professor Pival stated that the Faculty Subcommittee found
that faculty women are not exempt from the same problems which
other female employees share. As with the other employee pools,
faculty women at UK experience substantive and significant
differential treatment in every aspect of their professional
lives.

Professor Pival pointed out the differences in employment
patterns. She stated that for more than sixty years the
percentage of female faculty at UK has varied only slightly.
This fact is made dramatically clear in a graph she presented
that was developed from data from the Kentucky Commission on
Human Rights for 1975 - l985. The percentage of women who are
tenured is lower than the total number of women and is reversed
for men. In the total population the percentage of women fac—
ulty has hovered around nineteen percent. The percentage of
tenured women is lower and runs around ten to fifteen percent.
Professor Pival stated that using the UK database for the year
1988—89, which is the year the study was started, the committee
found the following things to be true. First of all, faculty
women are concentrated in a few disciplines and faculty lines
are virtually absent in others. Included in the head count in
all faculty lines except the temporary ones, the committee found
that forty-five percent of all faculty women are clustered in
Nursing, Education, Home Economics and Library and Information
Science. Twenty-six more are in Arts and Sciences and Medi-
cine. The remaining twenty-nine percent are scattered across
the other eleven colleges. She added that some of the depart—
ments have few or no women faculty. Twenty percent of the
academic departments at UK have no women. The committee
compared the women population of UK with eighty-eight public
institutions and found that almost three—fourths of UK's depart-
ments fall below the national averages for female faculty.

Professor Pival stated that sixty-six percent in the
library title series are women, fifty—five percent of the 489
part—time faculty are women, women are three times more likely

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

to be in the special title series, and conversely only one in
ten of the extension faculty is a woman. Secondly, the
committee found that women are concentrated at lower faculty
ranks. More than eighty percent of all women faculty are at the
assistant or associate professor level. Men predominate at the
professor level, women predominate at the associate professor
level. Less than eight percent of full professors are women.
Professor Pival stated there may be a number of reasons for this
problem, and one is the possibility of not having women on
search committees in administrative decision making positions.
There is a lack of aggressive, competitive recruiting, and lack
of interaction with the Affirmative Action Office. Professor
Pival feels the most disturbing reason is that there is wide—
spread complacency and disinterest among department chairs about
the problem. She stated that one department chair cited that he
could not hire women because there was too small a pool of
candidates in his field. However, when the committee counted
the number of part-time faculty in his department, they found
almost fifty percent of them were women.

The third point Professor Pival made is that female faculty
earn less than comparable males. The committee's findings about
the salary inequities resulted from a three-prong study. Those
are gender comparison of institutional salary data, a multi—
regression analyses, and an analysis of the perceptions of

female faculty about salary discrimination as indicated in
survey responses and interviews. No matter how faculty compen-
sation was analyzed, the conclusion is the same. Women faculty
earn less than men on average by rank, by college, and by
sector. Even when such factors as year hired, time in rank,
terminal degree, and national market values of disciplines are
taken into account, gender stands out as a significant negative
force on the salaries of faculty women at UK, because initial
hiring salaries are generally lower. Secondly, the capricious
and arbitrary merit system encourages discrimination. Third,
the associate professor lag, and fourth, a value system in which
women's work is not as highly regarded as men's work. This is
especially a problem for women who are involved in family
studies or women's studies, but it is also a problem for women
who are doing "main—line research." If a woman is doing it,
it's not as good as the research the man does. Professor Pival
stated that this attitude is reflected in merit evaluations and
their subsequent pay increases.

Assistant Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, Susan Scollay,
was the next committee member to give a report which was an overview. A
summary of her remarks follows:

Professor Scollay stated that there are several common
threads in the presentations given, and in the report from which
the presentations came. Commonalities in the status and
experience of women span unit, sector, level, and employee
group. She noted these themes are so strong and consistent that

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November 12, 1990
they cannot be ignored nor can they be denied.

Professor Scollay provided an overview of two common themes
which the committee feels are particularly important and basic.
One concerns organizational values, the values that UK as an
institution projects and teaches to employees, to our constit-
uencies, and to most important, our students. The other has to
do with the implications of these organizational values for the
status and experience of women, particularly in terms of the
organizational climate in which they must work.

First, Professor Scollay commented on organizational
values. UK is a very large complex organization with 8,000 plus
employees in Lexington alone. Like any community, UK has its
own culture, social norms, and accepted ways of doing things.

As the presentations suggest, as the report documents, UK, as an
organization, has very conservative and traditional values; they
are also gender—specific. As an organization, UK's collective
behavior is based on a set of beliefs that defines appropriate
and acceptable behavior, roles, responsibilities, expectations,
and opportunities on the basis of gender. Professor Scollay
added that who we are and what we are, what we can and cannot do
at UK, is determined to a very great extent by whether we are a
woman or a man.

Professor Scollay stated such organizational values are
reflected in a variety of ways. For example, organizational
values are reflected in who is hired and for what tasks. At the
University of Kentucky, the majority of full—time, permanent
employees are women, but nine out of every ten women are
employed as either hourly or professional non-faculty staff,
whereas one out of every two men is either an administrator or
faculty member.

Professor Scollay noted that organizational values are also
manifested in who an organization chooses to honor and recognize
as outstanding. The University gives many awards and the
pattern is absolutely consistent. For example, the Sturgill
Award is given for outstanding contributions to graduate educa-
tion. It has been given twenty-two times but never to a woman.
She added that out of eighty-six Great Teacher Awards only
eleven have gone to women.

Professor Scollay stated that organizations indicate their
values through their official language. Eight or ten years ago
the Board of Trustees was asked to remove sexist references such
as “chairman" in the Governing and Administrative Regulations
because not all academic leaders are men. It chose not to do
so.

 

Professor Scollay suggested that institutional values are
also articulated in the allocation of resources and authority.
One task of the committee was to look at UK's benchmark

 

 Minutes, University Senate, November l2, l990

institutions, their affirmative action programs in particular.
What the committee discovered is UK has the most minimal of
affirmative action programs. It is the one with the smallest
staff and smallest budget. The University has the fewest number
of initiatives to attract, recruit, and retain women. The
Affirmative Action Office has the least amount of authority
because it has none in recruitment and hiring processes.

Professor Scollay stated that an organization communicates
its values very clearly if implicitly through its own self-image
as projected in its publications and other products. To her the
most enlightening and also most disheartening aspect of the
committee's work was to analyze UK's self—image. The committee
looked at PR materials, the UK Strategic Plan, the Communi—K,
recruiting materials, and ads in newspapers. In the analySis,
the committee had two questions: ”How often are women repre-
sented and when they are represented, how are they portrayed?”
She stated that the pattern found was consistent. [Professor
Scollay showed pictures taken from two official UK publications
to illustrate the point.] Concerning the issue of relative
representation, Professor Scollay showed a picture of a meetin