am special report the Sunday dcaily by daiiiel ziw'e dling iber 43 Night Editor:Lynn Weiner Sunday, February 14, 1971 The 'U' crusade for/against women *i ITY THE POOR University: one of the great educational institutions in the nation, famed for liberal achieve- ments, it is berated publicly by the U.S. Denartment of Health, Education and Welfare b e c a u s e it discriminates against-not blacks but-women. HEW ordered the leaders here, all of them men, to upgrade women: they must revamp hiring procedures, formulate employment goals and timetables, and scour t h e ir records, scrutinize every one, search their souls to discover women they have oppressed, and then pay back every penny which these women should have earned but didn't. Think of the work! Allan Smith, vice president for academic affairs, calls this demand an "imposition." "Our ob- jetion is the godawful number of man hours it will take todo it," Smith com- plains. But University administrators are getting something out of the agree- ment: the national press has hailed the University's commitment as "historic," and even 'University officials trumpet their affirmative action plan as a na- tionwide first. It's true the University is the first college in the country to tackle the problem of sex discrimina- tion. It sounds so glorious! One begins to forget the University started the discrimination in the first place. But behind administrative doors, the men of the University are grumbling. We just want to get those bastards at HEW off our backs," confides Fidele Fauri, vice president for state relations and plan- ning. He's supervisor of the University battle agairst sex discrimination. The University has treated the HEW investigation and agreement hostilely from the beginning. HEW shocked the nation's college system when it blocked new government contracts last fall to four major universities because they discriminate against, women - t h e University was one of them. Women felt powerless to challenge discrimination in university employment until last year, when the Washington-based Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) discovered the potentials of a 1965 Executive Order 11246, a.mended in 1968 to prohibit discrimination by fed- eral contractors for reasons of sex as well as national origin, religion, age and race. Since then, WEAL has de- manded investigations at more than 200 universities, including all medical schools plus the entire state systems of California, New. York, Florida and New Jersey. HEW fingered the University as its test target. We're a good place to start. Barely six per cent of the Uniyersity faculty with professorial status are women, and most of them cluster in the school of nursing (all w o m e n there), library science, childhood edu- cation, social work and the literary col- lege (romance languages are biggest). Few of the women who work on the nonacademic staff rise past secretarial positions. It's common to find a woman cleric with a BA or MA per- forming 'the same duties as a man classified higher up on the scale who is earning $8,000 more per year. If you wear a skirt you're an administra- tive secretary; otherwise you're an administrative assistant. Even when women do make the senior administra- tive assistant level - their peak at the University - they average up to 27 per cent less money than men in the same job. Deep in the recesses of University files, there is sordid information t h e University wasn't anxious to reveal. When a team of four HEW investigat- ors arrived last August, University of- ficials balked at opening all person- nel files. "There's confidential infor- mation in personnel files which we don't feel just anyone should be able to look at," says one administrator. He says the Univeristy was protecting its employes. HEW threatened to block automatically federal conracts, and the University loosened up. For what? Two months later HEW delivered a scath- ing 20 page report, crammed with evi- dence of sex discrimination (the Uni- versity refuses to release the report, claiming that it is full of "misinforma- tion" which would cause more public harm than good), and demanded a tough affirmative action program to increase employment of w o m e n throughout the University. President Robben Fleming respond- ed with a program which promised, at best, to "keep staff members informed periodically that the Michigan Civil Rights Commission is available to re- view and process discrimination, in- cluding sex, complaints." HEW flatly rejected the proposal, and to enforce its point, blocked up to $7.5 million in federal contracts. After frantic nego- tia~tions with top HEW officials in Washington, the University finally wrote the nation's first affirmative ac- tion program which HEW hopes will pave the way for achieving employ- ment equality between the sexes. HEW has 200 more sex discrimina- tion complaints pending; our agree- ment will provide the model. If you study it closely you'll know what pro- gress to expect in the sex discrimina- tion battle. The Plan The highlights of the program prom- ise the University will: 0 achieve salary equity between men and women employes who have t h e same qualifications, responsibilities and performance in the same job cate- gories; " pay back wages to any women who has lost pay due to discrimination, re- troactive to the date she was hired; * undertake the "vigorous" recruit- ment of women in faculty positions; " give "priority consideration" to eligible women who seek promotion in nonacademic jobs; * treat tandem husband-wife teams equally, and pay back wages to any wives who have been discriminated against; 0 recruit men and women for em- ployment without any classification by sex; * create a special commission on women. "Once you let women know they've got you over a barrel, they'll take every- thing they can get from you," William Cash, the University's human relations director and member of the negotiat- ing team with HEW, told me. "Women just make life difficult." I leaned over his desk to squeeze a little horn that's mounted on wood and goes "blaaht." regions, Kansas City and Seattle, dmn't have any investigators. HEW devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the first stage of negotiations with the University, but won't have the staff to follow up on the University's progress: "Now our inves- tigations are hit and miss," says James Hodgedon, the HEW Chicago Regional director. "If we send investigators back to Michigan, it means they can't go some lace else." The University will send periodic re- ports to HEW, but that doesn't guaran- tee the reports will be accurate, or if they are accurate, that the progress they represent will be satisfactory. "It all depends on how you rate the Uni- versity's good faith," says Hodgedon. "I'm sure they're not complete scoun- drels. Everybody has a little bit of scoundrel in them. But we don't expect clear sailing either." Major a r e a s of discrimination against women at the University re- main untouched by the HEW agree- ment. No mention of maternity leave, no mention of child care centers. And little mention of discrimination against women in admissions. HEW originally ordered the Univer- sity to increase the number of women admitted to graduate programs, but after Fleming and Smith descended on It's a "Secretary University administration - distrust of women may sabotage it. For example: Under its pledge for "vigorous recruitment" of women pro- fessors, University officials must send HEW by March 8 detailed numerical employment goals and timetables. Just how many women will the University actually hire? Fleming has told all de- partments the University won't hire any staff for at least three years. All new personnel must come from normal turnover, which means a woman's only hope is capturing positions vacated through resignations or retirement. Tight economic conditions will mean abnormally small turnover. "In t h e short run," says Barbara Newell, an in- stitutional freak as assistant to the President, and chairwoman of the Commission, "I'm afraid what we may be doing is just making sure that women aren't the first to be squeezed out." When it comes to actually formulat- ing goals and timetables, each depart- ment chairman follows his (they're all men) own conscience: there are no University-wide guidelines. Smith de- fines the guarantee women will get: "We have a University policy that says to department heads: 'You will be active, you will be aggressive, you will set up a goal.' Then it's up to the in- dividual units to achieve it." University officials aren't eager to compensate women who are lucky enough to have jobs but haven't been getting the salaries they should. The executive officers seriously considered suing the government in federal court to challenge its clause on retroactive pay. "The normal procedure, over- whelmingly, in labor practice is to pay retroactive to the date of the com- plaint, not some arbitrary preolace in the past," complaints Smith. Further- more, he says, "We objected to the im- oosition of our reviewing 15,000 files" to find cases of sex discrimination. The University said: let those with griev- ances come to us. "But we finally de- cided, it's just work." Personnel woes aller." ordered, they considered only job cate- gories which include both men and women - less than 25 per cent of the total work force. Then, instead of comparing the average female to the average male salaries - which would show an enormous discrepancy - they compared the average female salary to the average salary of men and women together. That weights the fig- ure down. Predictably, personnel found only 160 women in a total work force of 10,000 whose salaries are inexplicably below "normal." Director of Personnel Ed- ward Hayes says his department can "explain away" all but 35 cases. Personnel .won't even consider rais- ing the pay of the mass of women employes - clerical workers with bot- tom pay and scanty worker benefits. There aren't any male workers to com- pare them with. Nor will Personnel in- vestigate whether women with one classification are doing the same job as a man who's classified higher. As a result, notes PROBE, the cam- pus women's research group, the ad- ministration "neatly sidesteps t h e most blatant inequity in the Univer- sity's present salary structure - that is, females are systematically hired in- to job classifications beneath their training and abilities." "That's a horrendous task," says Hayes. "To gather facts on what an in- dividual's duties and responsibilities are takes four hours. Six thousand wo- men times 4 hours is 24,000 man hours of effort." But, Hayes says, that's not the main issue, which is: the University doesn't need such a study. "We think job class- ifications are equitable," he says, "be- cause that's been one of our most fund- amental concepts - that men and women doing the same job get the same pay." What about women who qualify for better jobs but don't get promoted be- cause of their sex? This is an exam- ple, says Vice President Smith, where HEW's "interpretation of existing con- ditions is wrong. They blame discrim- ination as the cause of few women be- ing in top jobs, when that's not' the reason. "HEW sees we have a large number of secretaries who have high degrees, and says we're discriminating because they aren't in higher jobs. We have hund- reds of well qualified faculty wives who want to work to help support their hus- bands. Many of them have training to qualify them for jobs better than sec- retary. But we don't have many jobs available better than secretary. Do we tell them they can't work? They say they want to work, so we hire them as secretaries." Smith continues: "We have a good many emploTes, knowing their tenure here is only three to five years because their husbands will leave, who don't seek a shift to a higher position. They don't want that additional responsibil- ity." But Smith concedes there are some women who do deserve promotion, want it, and don't get it. "We'll put their names on a list along with everyone else and consider them when there's an opening," says personnel director Hayes. That's the University's "priority consideration." Women who don't like the Univer- sity's sense of justice can protest as a last resort through normal grievance procedures: complain to your super- visor ("that's the man who hired you and is responsible for the grievance in the first place," observes Newell), then to the department head, and finally to the University Grievance Board: Di- rector of Personnel Hayes, the chief of the employe's department, and - as a special new feature in sex cases - a woman. Personnel director Hayes has already formed his verdicts. "As far as Person- nel is concerned, discrimination against women does not exist." He adds, "May- be it does not insure the most fair and impartial review since we are re- viewing our own judgments." Univer- sity officials say they'll use this pro- cedure only for nonacademic employ- es; the faculty maintains a tradition of settling disputes informally among colleagues. Most, of course, are men. The best summary of the Univer- sity's commitment to fighting sex dis- crimination is the new Women's Com- mission: it has no budget and no pow- ers. Administration officials (none of them will take credit) selected these two men, eight faculty women and two nonacademic female employes, by "asking around to see who was inter- ested" according to an administration source. The University recently granted the commission members time-off every Friday afternoon; before then, the commission was "a floating crap game," says chairwoman Newell. Newell says the commission .plans to begin hearings in March on sex dis- crimination and hopes "to have a few concrete recommendations by the end of the semester." But the Women's Commission won't review the crucial employment goals and timetables which the University will send HEW in March. "We simply will not have time to get everybody into the act," says Smith. The affirmative action plan might work at the University if government enforcement could outmuscle the ad- ministration's begrudging attitude. Only punitive economic sanctions, the contract bans, forced the University to look at sex discrimination at all. But f' Fedele Fauri the Washington office to protest the issue was referred to Secretary Elliot Richardson. The University contends the execu- tive order doesn't give HEW authority to monitor admissions; HEW argues that since admission to graduate school is a prerequisite for employment as a teaching or research assistant, it falls under the HEW mandate. Few people doubt there's discrimination against graduate women: as funds get tighter, Rackham will admit male students "who are more likely to finish, less likely to drop out and have babies," as- sociate Dean Byron Groesbeck said last year. If Richardson upholds the HEW staff decision, says Smith, the Univer- sity will go to the courts. Undergraduate admissions, mean- while, go completely unprotected by the executive order. The LSA admis- sions committee has maintained for years a male-female freshman ratio of about 55-45 percent, although there are more qualified women than men appli- cants in terms of standardized test scores and grades. What's the ration- ale? Smith suggests it might be "his- toric" tradition. Another reason: "The hard sciences would lose" if suddenly more women and less men were admit- ted. Women flock to the humanities. In any case, the University isn't going to look at admissions discrimination. "We have enough trouble," says Smith. Raising consciousness On the top floors of the Administra- tion Building, the University's male leaders pace the corridors, damning the whole HEW controversy as some vast mistake. Fidele Fauri, poor fellow, is burdened with unwanted responsi- bility for the whole anti-sex disrimina- tion program. "I don't know why I have anything to do with sex," he says, They're furious at HEW's "complete arbitrariness" (Fauri's words) in fing- ering the University. HEW negotiated an affirmative action program with the But women at the University aren't The Personnel office is combing the applauding. The plan may prove to be files, ostensibly searching for women more of a public relations hoax than who are getting cheated out of honest a genuine commitment to fighting sex wages. But they're playing games with discrimination. Political maneuvering, statistics: when personnel investigat- bureaucratic obstinence, economic ors recently studied job files to find realities, and a deep seated male - i.e. cases of wage discriminationi, as HEW