Category Archives: equitable policies & practices

Notes from Where We Stand 2018

At Where We Stand, we always have themed tables with relevant resources, markers, and white butcher paper for notes. This year, with the focus on the NAS report on sexual and gender harassment, each table was focused around one or two of NAS’s 15 recommendations. We combined the NAS findings with JHU data. For example:

With over 50 people participating, the event began with a welcome from John Toscano, Vice Dean for Natural Sciences in the Kreiger School. Next Professor Karen Fleming gave an overview of the NAS report (WhereWeStand_KarenSlidesForDistribution)

Dean Toscano’s remarks: Good evening. As we get ready to discuss the National Academies Report on Sexual Harassment, I’m honored to be here with colleagues ready to engage in what is probably some of our most important work at this juncture: that is, increasing gender equity in all aspects of our academic and work environments here at Johns Hopkins University.

We have made notable progress on some of the goals outlined in the Vision 2020 Report. The new parental leave policy recently put into place will help to enhance work-life balance. Additionally, the provost’s office recently hired a dual career specialist who will focus on providing divisions with resources and services to maximize opportunities to recruit and retain dual career couples.

We have recently implemented two faculty initiatives at Krieger and Whiting – the Launch Program and the Master Mentor Program. Launch committees are designed to provide new junior faculty in STEM fields with advice and mentorship to facilitate early career success. Our Master Mentor program equips senior faculty to be better and more effective mentors for junior faculty, postdocs, and graduate students. While these programs are new, we are excited about their start and we believe that they have the potential to impact important aspects of our climate and culture.

Although we are proud of this progress, we also recognize opportunities for improvement that will better position us for institutional excellence. In order to create new knowledge that offers potential solutions to global and societal problems, it’s critical that everyone has a place at the academic table.

In particular, we must explore ways to expand pathways to leadership for women faculty and staff. One of our goals is to improve our training, hiring, mentoring, and promotion practices. Currently, some of these systems and policies can make it challenging for scholars and academic leaders to fully develop their academic and professional pathways.

We also know from research that the more diverse a team is, the more innovative it is. That means that if we’re not actively solving issues of underrepresentation at all levels, and breaking down barriers, we are losing out on talent and the opportunity to innovate faster and better.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, we must engage men who are part of the Hopkins community in our efforts towards gender equity. Men, particularly those in leadership positions, play an important role in breaking down barriers and promoting equity. We can’t afford to place the burden solely on women or other underrepresented groups to change the status quo.

In this regard, we want to encourage men to increase awareness of actions and potential biases that impact the career success of women. For example, we encourage men who are chairs of academic departments to initiate discussions on ways to foster collegiality, collaboration, and an inclusive climate in their own departments – to fight what the National Academies Report refers to as “gender harassment” – that is, verbal or nonverbal behavior that conveys hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status toward members of one gender.

As we begin to roll up our sleeves today and dig into this work, I’d like to envision the highest ideal – an environment and launching pad so inclusive that any student, postdoc, staff, or faculty member can reach for their heights without stumbling over barriers of any kind. So, let’s begin to dive into what is needed to get us from here to there.

Thank you.

In the next week or so, we’ll share the resources and the ideas of each of the tables. Until soon–

How UT Austin’s integrative-biology department is addressing gender harassment

Below is an excerpt from Lindsay Ellis and Sarah Brown’s 11/9/2018 Chronicle article “How a Department Took On the Next Frontier in the #MeToo Movement.”

For more articles on graduate student advising, look in our file cabinet and scroll down. And we hope Homewood faculty (all ranks, all genders) will join us and Dean Wendland to discuss these issues over coffee at the Hopkins Club Wed, Nov 28, between 8:30-10:30am. coffee cup

From the Chronicle:

After she began her Ph.D. in the fall of 2017, [Julia M.] York learned more about the department’s environment, its quirks, its flaws. She learned about the sorts of challenges that women face in the academy. About rumors that faculty members treated female graduate students differently from the men. About the times when male professors made sexist comments and no one said anything.

And she learned about the whisper network. Older students had a warning: There’s this professor in the department. Don’t work with him. Don’t go anywhere alone with him.

In the meantime, she saw story after story in the news about university employees accused of harassment or inappropriate romantic relationships, some of them at Austin. She came to believe that campus policies aren’t designed to reduce discrimination against women; they’re designed to protect the institution.

Coffee Hour: Grad Student Advising

coffee cupWe are delighted to invite Homewood faculty of all ranks and all genders to join a coffee hour discussion about graduate student advising! (So far we’ve posted about this topic here and here.)

Please mark your calendars for Wed, Nov 28, 8:30-10:30am – most likely in the Hopkins Club; we’ll confirm with you. Drop in when you can and stay as long as you like. Bring a friend.

Many thanks to Dean Wendland’s office for sponsoring this event!

It’s not over for NIPS

img_13451As you may know, over 100 Hopkins professors, researchers, grad students, and postdocs signed a letter to the machine learning conference known as “NIPS” urging a name change. The acronym is misogynist slang and a racist slur; a google or twitter search for the conference produces porn; participants at the conference have a long history of employing the acronym in ways that are hostile and demeaning. To get a taste of this one need only look back to last year’s conference, when Elon Musk is reported as having made “nips” and “tits” jokes on stage . . . to a cheering audience.

Astonishingly, the board of NIPS said no.

Those of us who support the name change must say so out loud in our departments. Silence will endorse the NIPS decision. Here are some lines you can have handy:

 

  • National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS/NASEM) published a report this summer that 58% of women scientists have been sexually harassed and makes 15 urgent recommendations for changing the culture in STEM, including to “address gender harassment.” And NIPS doesn’t change its name?
  • Numbers don’t stand alone, and biased data don’t give accurate answers. NIPS should know better.
  • The fact that NIPS can’t use its own name for a website because it’s already claimed by a porn site is all the board needed to know.
  • Whatever you think of the acronym, the fact remains that this conference has a terrible reputation (see here and here) in terms of gender. Perception matters.
  • Whatever you think of the acronym, we just lost out on extraordinary talent among young women and their allies who want nothing to do with a field that appears to be short-sighted, tone deaf, and/or hostile.
  • A conference that sells out in less than 12 minutes is in a pretty good position to rebrand itself. What are they afraid of?
  • We are the last people who should be making it harder for girls to pursue CS, AI, ML, and the like. Just the opposite. Anything we can think of that taps into the talent of 1/2 the population is something we should do.
  • You can’t taut GirlsWhoCode one minute and then turn around and pretend that “NIPS” is gender inclusive. Or is it that they know it’s not gender inclusive, and they just don’t care?

The background noise on our campuses matters. If we speak up, even in passing, we contribute to background noise that is supportive rather than derisive or silent.

You can also sign a petition, based on the original JHU letter, protesting the decision.

There is some good news: at this year’s conferences, there will be an inclusion town hall, help with child care, gender-inclusive restrooms, a code of conduct, and mentor breakfasts for women and minorities. You can read the good, the bad, and the ugly about the Not Gonna Do It here. Just be prepared; there is some serious ugly.

Wired was right on top of this, interviewing our own Elana Fertig in “AI Researchers Fight Over Four Letters: NIPS.”  The board based its decision on analysis of a survey it sent to previous attendees at the conference. Medium.com’s “NIPS AI Conference to Continue Laughing about Nipples at the Expense of Women in Tech” comments:

As a conference on what is essentially fancy statistics, you might expect them to have a better grasp on concepts like sampling bias.

 

Where We Stand 2018

Thank you to everyone who was able to come last Thursday, and an additional thank-you to those who helped set up!

We began with welcome remarks by Dean Toscano and an overview of the NAS report by Professor Fleming. Then, participants discussed the following recommendations in small groups:

#1 Inclusive environments and #15 The whole community is responsible

#2 Address gender harassment and #6 Support the target

#3 Move beyond legal compliance to address culture and climate

#4 transparency & accountability and #7 strong, diverse leadership

#5 Diffuse the hierarchical & dependent relationship between mentors & trainees

Details to follow!