W
hen colleges first began
to go co-ed about the
time of the Civil War,
higher education was still very much
a man’s game. It wasn’t until 1980,
nearly 100 years after the start, that
women and men began to attend
college at similar rates. Soon enough,
women began to outpace men in
terms of attending college and earning
degrees. As of 2015, 72.5 percent of
women
who
recently
graduated
high school were enrolled in college,
compared to 65.8 percent of men of
the same demographic. Furthermore,
women who are enrolled in two-year
or four-year institutions tend to be
more successful in their academic and
extracurricular endeavors.
It is now apparent that American
women have unprecedented access
to a college education that was never
afforded to women of past generations.
However, despite this access, women
are still woefully underrepresented in
academia and beyond. This infuriating
fact raises the question of why women
continue to fall behind in leadership
roles while they earn more degrees.
Historically,
attending
college
was largely reserved for typically
economically privileged young men
looking to pursue careers in the fields
of ministry, medicine or law. As women
were usually excluded from such
careers, a college education wasn’t
practical. As the workforce began to
diversify, so too did college educations.
Furthermore, women began to enter
the workforce in then-unparalleled
numbers
as
American
society
underwent the rapid transformation of
social norms that began during World
War II. From this point forward,
women began to work outside of the
home at much more regular rates.
Eventually, a college degree became
essential to be competitive in the
workforce. This reliance on college
degrees coincided with the onset of
second-wave feminism. Also referred
to as the “women’s movement,” this
uprising of feminist ideals focused
largely on gender equality for women
in work and education. Shortly
thereafter, women began to attend
college in rapidly increasing rates,
eventually rising to the rates they are
today.
It is wildly apparent that women
today are more able to attend college
than ever before. Female college
students now are more likely to
have higher grade point averages
than male students, both when they
begin and when they finish their
higher education. Women in college
also tend to schedule themselves
more
aggressively
in
terms
of
extracurriculars, spend more time
studying and participate in school-
related activities. However, unlike
their male counterparts, female college
graduates are not as likely to encounter
striking success in their careers of
choice. For example, despite similar
levels of education, the gender wage
gap still persists, with women earning
between 70 and 90 percent of what
men do on average in their respective
fields.
The dearth of female leadership
in business and politics extends deep
into other spheres. While women are
much more likely to be teachers in
primary and high school settings, this
trend does not continue into higher
education. In American universities,
slightly more than a quarter of full
professors were women in 2013. In
terms of leadership positions, women
fall behind even more so. Women are
extremely underrepresented among
senior faculty in many universities.
A lack of female academics holding
positions as college deans or university
provosts contributes to the fact that just
over 25 percent of university presidents
were women in 2012. This statistic
is undoubtedly not representative of
college student body populations as
a whole. In colleges and universities
nationwide,
women
represent
nearly 60 percent of students. Even
in higher education, where women
are continually making gains in
terms of attendance and academic
success, they still remain woefully
underrepresented in the leadership of
their own universities.
In many cases, elite universities
are among the worst offenders. The
University of Oxford in the United
Kingdom, which often boasts its status
as among the world’s most ancient of
institutions of higher education, did not
appoint a female vice-chancellor until
2016. The University of Pennsylvania
became the first Ivy League institution
to appoint a female president in 1994.
The University of Michigan did not
have a female president until Mary
Sue Coleman assumed the role in 2002
— 185 years after the University was
founded.
Aside from leadership roles in
universities, female professors and
other educators still fall behind male
colleagues in terms of respect within
their positions. This is most evident
in an examination of the academic
positions women hold within colleges
and universities. As of 2015, women
held nearly half of all tenure-track
positions within universities, but only
accounted for 38.4 percent of actual
tenure positions. Similarly, women
working in academia are more likely
to hold lower-ranked positions. Female
academics represent more than half of
assistant professors and 44.9 percent of
associate professors, yet also account
for just 32.4 percent of full professors.
Of instructor positions, which are
typically among the lowest ranking
in academia, women account for 57
percent. Furthermore, at all faculty
levels from instructor to tenured
professor, male academics out-earn
their female peers. In the 2016-2017
school year, male full professors
earned an average salary of $104,493,
compared to $98,524 for women at the
same level.
The reasons for these disparities
are clearly not because women are less
intellectually capable than men, or any
less hardworking. Yet, these disparities
persist nonetheless and permeate into
fields outside of academia. Women
are continually underrepresented in
a multitude of professional leadership
positions. Just 4.8 percent of CEOs of
Fortune 500 companies are women, a
number that has fallen from 2017’s all-
time high of 6.4 percent. In the political
realm, just 23 current U.S. senators
(soon to be 24) are women. Despite this
low number, this is still a record high for
women in the Senate. In the U.S. House
of Representatives, just 19.3 percent
are women, though the percentage is
expected to grow after the midterm
elections. Historically, there have only
been 39 female governors in the U.S. As
a demographic, women, who comprise
50.8 percent of the U.S. population
and who are more highly educated
than they have ever been, are still
represented by governing bodies that
are overwhelmingly male-dominated.
In the 21st century, women are
undoubtedly
experiencing
fewer
obstacles in the educational field
than ever before. However, what are
the tangible effects of this increase
in higher education? Women as a
whole have proven they are capable of
success beyond college, yet few women
are ever able to obtain such success.
Women still lag behind men in terms
of pay, political representation and
leadership in business and education.
Women now attend college more often
than men do, yet they are less likely to
be taught by female full professors or
be led by female university presidents.
This reality, though, is one that may
be rapidly changing. In the 2018
midterm elections, a surge of female
candidates launched campaigns and
are changing the political landscape.
Women continue to attend college
at unprecedented rates, earning a
record number of degrees. No matter
how many women enter office after
the midterms, or how many female
university presidents are appointed
in the near future, women deserve a
much louder voice in the conversation
than what is currently being afforded
to them.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, November 9, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN
The gender gap of academia
Defending the legacy of the Michigan native
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Alanna Berger can be reached at
balanna@umich.edu.
FROM THE DAILY
N
o matter how you slice it, the 2018 midterm elections were historic.
The next Congress will include the most women ever elected to the
House of Representatives and the Senate, including the first two
Muslim-American congresswomen. Early turnout estimates suggest that
Tuesday’s turnout blew all previous midterms out of the water, an encouraging
sign of rising voter enthusiasm and waning political apathy. Here in Michigan,
voters approved two pro-democracy ballot proposals by wide margins that
will prevent partisan gerrymandering and make voting easier for all Michigan
residents. All of these are encouraging signs of a healthy electorate, despite
President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on democratic values.
Yet Tuesday’s elections also
showcased the dark side of
American democracy in 2018.
Voter suppression served as a
major overtone throughout the
Georgia
gubernatorial
race,
where Republican candidate
Brian Kemp also served as
the chief election official for
his own race in his role as
Georgia
secretary
of
state.
Refusing to step down from his
position during the election,
Kemp
slashed
voter
rolls
using an exact match law that
predominantly removed Black,
Latinx and Asian voters from
the rolls — echoing the state’s
dark history of suppressing
Black
voters.
But
these
barriers to casting a ballot
were not specific to Georgia.
Across the nation, long lines,
insufficient
equipment
and
general chaos plagued polling
centers, potentially serving as a
deterrent for those with a busy
schedule seeking to cast their
vote. Even in Detroit, some
would-be voters left polling
places after waiting hours for
outdated voting equipment to
receive maintenance. A healthy
democracy requires maximal
election
participation.
The
hurdles placed in front of
voters Tuesday only suppressed
democratic ideals.
Though
these
obstacles
to voting were widespread,
Democrats still managed to
fare quite well in many of the
districts won by Trump in 2016.
By ignoring Trump’s racist
dog-whistling about a caravan
from Central America, they
achieved success by focusing
on a consistent message of
improving
health
care
and
policies that would benefit all
Americans. This tactic worked
favorably
for
Democrats,
especially those seeking to
flip
suburban
communities.
However,
they
still
have
ways to go in appealing to
working-class voters in rural
areas. Given Trump’s overall
popularity, and the impact his
trade policy has had on rural
communities, we would have
hoped Democrats could have
turned many of these districts
blue. Despite this, Democrats
should
not
abandon
these
districts and instead strive
for a more unifying message
that plays well in both suburbs
and rural areas before the
2020 campaign. Further, the
barriers to voting revealed
during this election call for a
more fervent push from the
new Democratic House to put
election reform at the top of
the agenda. We hope that pro-
democracy measures, such as
proposed packages to mandate
independent
commissions
to
draw
congressional
districts and reforming the
congressional
ethics
code
become
priorities
for
both
newly elected lawmakers and
incumbents. Efforts to combat
voter suppression as well as
a strategy to listen and take
into account the needs and
sentiments of rural America are
vital for Democrats.
Though this election cycle
has
concluded,
the
energy
we’ve seen cannot dwindle.
We hope voters do not let
the mixed results of 2018
discourage them from voting in
the future. We’re thrilled to see
the enthusiasm this election
turned out on campus, and hope
that it keeps college students
permanently engaged. As many
close elections this cycle have
shown, every vote counts. Don’t
let complacency get the best of
you. Continue to stay educated
on the issues confronting our
nation and ensure your voice is
heard at every opportunity.
I
f you have never been to
or do not plan on visiting
Northern Michigan during the
summertime, then you have never
lived, nor do you truly ever plan
to. I have experienced the timeless,
suave waters of Michigan that are
extraordinary in their own respect
and are only a part of Michigan’s
breathtaking nature that keeps its
inhabitants here year-round. I recall
the crystal blue water that you can see
shimmering within the vast expanse
of Lake Huron, while standing only
steps away from the shore on the rocks
surrounding Mackinac Island. You
can feel the chill of Lake Michigan
just viewing it from the sand dunes,
remembering the Legend of the
Sleeping Bear as you see the silhouettes
of the North and South Manitou
Islands contrasting the setting sun. You
can feel the essence of a land defined by
water. It’s never going to be the place
for everyone, but it will forever be the
roots of those lucky enough to call it
home.
We stay here because we’ve been
raised to appreciate the natural
beauty Michigan gives throughout
each season. This beauty has been
prioritized and maintained by the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
and
Department
of
Environmental Quality — agencies
of the state of Michigan that manage
the use of natural resources within
state parks, for recreation and in
industry. Specifically, the protection
of Michigan’s water resources has
been the subject of the Michigan
Water Strategy, a 30-year plan created
by the Michigan Office of the Great
Lakes in collaboration with other
departments to sustain Michigan’s
globally unique water heritage. The
plan addresses several demands
from the government and the people,
some of which include restoring
and protecting aquatic ecosystems,
investing in water infrastructure and
building governance tools to address
future problems that surface with
Michigan’s water resources. While
this strategy specifically aims to
address the forefront environmental
and economic concerns we have for
the Great Lakes, it also pertains to the
quality of Michigan’s remaining water
bodies by nature.
Though the Office of the Great
Lakes is responsible for carrying out
the objectives of the water strategy,
the actions of this group within the
Department of Natural Resources
is influenced by the department’s
director, which is appointed by
Michigan’s governor. With a 53.3
percent
majority,
Democratic
candidate Gretchen Whitmer was
elected Michigan’s newest governor
on Tuesday. As a person who is
wholeheartedly invested in using
practical methods to improve the
environment and ensure its quality
remains at the forefront of our
lifestyles, I am elated to know that
she has assumed this government
position that directly influences the
workings of the department with the
capacity to progress our environment.
While there are always logistics of a
politician’s stance that are questioned
by opponents or skeptics, her general
mindset for the environment should be
argued as our best ticket to a brighter
future for the Great Lakes and other
encompassing natural settings.
In
particular,
Whitmer
has
expressed her dissent toward the
continuation of Enbridge’s Line 5 in the
Great Lakes due to the potential risks
that it poses to water quality. Several
recent cases have demonstrated the
pipeline’s questionable durability and
its susceptibility to the mechanisms of
other methods of water transportation.
For instance, a vessel that contributed
to the mineral oil spill in the Straits of
Mackinac due to an anchor strike in
April 2018 is believed to be the same
vessel that created three small dents
in Enbridge’s pipeline, forcing it to
shut down until it could withstand
sufficient
pressure
after
repair.
While no catastrophe occurred in
this scenario, Whitmer sees that it
is only a matter of time before the
risk of an oil leak or spill in the Great
Lakes becomes reality and that the
people who are served by the pipeline
are not exactly the ones who will
suffer the consequences. She has also
expressed dedication toward finding
solutions to Michigan’s other water
crises, admitting the reprehensible
failures of the government that led
to the crisis in Flint and failures of
managing contamination sites that
led to the outbreak of polyfluoroalkyl
substances.
In addition to her intention to
address the broad goals outlined
by the water strategy, Whitmer
also plans to focus on innovative
freshwater
transportation
and
infrastructure, statewide education
on water economies and natural
resource
conservation
with
the
EPA’s Department of Great Lakes
and Freshwater and the U.S. Climate
Alliance. She believes in the sheer
power of collaboration when it comes
to accomplishing the necessary steps
toward protecting our waters and our
ecosystems: “We can’t unilaterally
control
the
federal
government,
but what we can do is get every
congressional member and every
governor of all the Great Lake states
and all the states that rely on the Great
Lakes and create a caucus that will
have some might. Because every time
Donald Trump introduces a budget
that cuts oversight funding for our
Great Lakes, we need to be active,
rolling up our sleeves.” With Governor-
elect Whitmer showing determination
and focus on the quality of our water, I
trust that her intentions for the Great
Lakes will translate to the various
other environmental components that
make up our gift of a home, and we
will stay because she will uphold these
values that define us.
Kianna Marquez can be reached at
kmarquez@umich.edu.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
Reflections on the midterms