I suppose I do disagree, Quantmech, because who has the power here? He’s a student, she’s the Dean. The balance of power is grossly in her favor. I’m sure the student also called her “She”, something you wouldn’t call a man. Regardless, if it bothered her so much, a short talk in the office should do it, no public shaming required.
Hopefully your chair has long retired, he is a dinosaur!!
Time to go to work, argue on, all! 
“Perky” is little girl, somewhat diminishes. I think more on this thread could consider how common words, even established words and phrases, serve to do that. Even unintentionally. That doesn’t mean we cower, look constantly over our shoulders for the PC police. But that we be open to consideration. And, omg, some self-editing.
We don’t need to mock those who notice the subtleties. Nor take this to an extreme where you seem to suggest if you can’t say whatever you want, what you think is fine or funny or your buds say all the time, no one can say anything.
Reductio ad absurdum.
My personal observation is that, chauvinism aside, women can be mighty unforgiving of other women, quick to lay fault at her feet. “She shouldn’t have done this,” dressed like that, taken Monday off, whatever. She should have done this or that- or had my attitude. Sometimes, it’s just b*itchy. Sometimes, self-aggrandizing. When we get to a place where all are more equally judged on our output, we won’t be as quick to do that.
Think about it.
^^ we had a thread about that recently, working with women compared to working with men. I was one of those that prefers men - but that makes sense given INTJ women are a rare type.
I actually completely agree with the Dean and the chair. This has nothing to do with whether women are paid less than men.
Look, the 78 year old full professor who should have retired 10 years ago could very well be one of the highest paid faculty members but is probably one of the least productive (and almost certainly is from a research perspective). The “young” 30 year old assistant prof who’s killing themselves to get tenure might be working 4 times as hard, but you’re not going to multiply their pay by 8 in order to pay them 4 times as much as the 78 year old. Ideally, you’d force the 78 year old to retire but you can’t, so you can’t even get near “equal pay for equal work”.
Any time you’re recruiting talented people in a competitive market you’re going to create pay disparities. That’s just the way it is. If you strongly need to hire someone to build up the department then you may have to pay them a 25% premium to the going rate to get them to move across the country. You’re not going to give everyone in the department a 25% pay raise before you make the hire. If you’re trying to recruit a female faculty member, then she may demand that you find a position for her spouse in order for her to move, or she may demand that she receive an extra year on her tenure path because she’s planning on having kids … those are all components of unequal pay too even if they don’t show up in someone’s paycheck.
However, I do think there’s lots of evidence that women faculty are somewhat underpaid relative to men. Some people say it’s because they’re less aggressive about asking for pay, or they’re unwilling to move to take a higher paying position, or they value “non-monetary” compensation more than men. This is a different issue than “equal pay for equal work”, which is too blunt a way of expressing or solving this problem.
I wouldn’t use “perky” in the workplace either, but on the other hand NBC practically built an entire marketing campaign around Katie Couric’s perkiness when she was starting out on the Today Show. I think the word was chosen (after lots of consideration and market research) because it was a non-sexual word used to a describe petite, bubbly woman (of course, after she securely established herself she came to loathe the word).
Look, practically any word can be given a sexual connotation if you’re bound and determined to. Even the most innocent of words are subject to this just by using some combination of innuendo, tone of voice, or a leering expression. That’s why the context is vital. I suspect that when the young man used the phrase “young and vivacious” when introducing the Dean he probably also talked about her educational accomplishments, the awards she won, the positions she held, etc. I’m sure the audience could tell from the context whether or not he meant anything inappropriate.
As any long-time readers of CC will know, lookingforward and I disagree on a few things. But I could not agree more with post #361, which I think is wonderfully stated!
Incidentally, within the last two or three years, one of my colleagues drafted the official department letter recommending a woman for a promotion, and mentioned in it that the students reacted well to her because she was “maternal.” Problem, or no problem?
The hilarious part of this whole kerfluffle is that people are calling this dean out for “overreacting” and supposedly “punishing” the student by mentioning the incident in an obscure article in an obscure law review that virtually no one reads. Way, way more people have read this thread than would have ever read that law review article (in the absence of the “outrage” over the professor’s supposed “outrage.”)
I still maintain that it is the student that has an overly thin skin by getting so worked up about some obscure mention (that doesn’t even call him out by name) in some obscure journal that is bound to simply gather dust in some unvisited corner of the library.
Wouldn’t “supportive of students” or some other word/phrase be better? If I was a guy who had my name in for the promotion, I’d might argue that it would be tough for me to appear “maternal”. See, it can cut both ways and my objections and concerns about word choice in a professional environment are just steeped in my feminist leanings. Gender should be taken out of the equation, period.
“Incidentally, within the last two or three years, one of my colleagues drafted the official department letter recommending a woman for a promotion, and mentioned in it that the students reacted well to her because she was “maternal.” Problem, or no problem?”
It’s a description of a characteristic. Maybe not the wisest choice of words – perhaps use caring, or empathetic, or solicitous, or protective. I think any business HR person would say – revise the word – but they also wouldn’t make a federal case out of it.
I think when there are still women who are grossly underpaid relative to men doing the same thing, when there are women who are working in environments with pin-up calendars and really gross jokes and “show me your boobies” or whatever, we don’t do well to overreact to the smaller stuff.
That’s not a question of equal pay for equal work, al2simon, #363. In scientific circles, one’s “work” includes not only the immediate accomplishments, but the accumulated impact of one’s discoveries (and teaching, though that rarely influences salary at a research university).
For what it’s worth, the professor with #n children (who “had” to be paid more because of that) and I are exactly the same age, and we both joined the department as Assistant Professors.
Yes, there are pay disparities that arise in situations you have described (eminent professor not doing so much now, salary boosts to recruit people), and I understand that. What you are not acknowledging is that the chair argued that if a man and a woman were doing exactly the same work, the man would have to be paid more, because he had a family to support.
From wikipedia: “Since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, it has been illegal in the United States to pay men and women working in the same place different salaries for similar work.”
I have zero women like that in my immediate social circle. And that’s not to say they aren’t plenty around, I just have no time for them. In a professional setting you can spot them a mile away. Their constant criticism of women is their misguided way of aligning themselves with those that they think have the power (men), rather than making the effort to establish their own power base. My own perception is that they get little respect on either side of the aisle --men see through it as quickly as women do.
@al2simon I think you are correct in your characterization of the word “perky” as far as our generation is concerned. But I have heard it used by younger men in a much different context. The Urban Dictionary describes one of those contexts. Anyway I agree it is not appropriate for the workplace.
To add to my last post, other sources of pay disparities include retention packages in response to outside offers, and appointment to endowed chairs within the university. None of these are directly gender-linked, though.
Except that was not the only issue. Within months of the intro stipends to Law Review editors were suspended and the faculty advisor who defended the student was relieved of his responsibilities.
Didn’t see that in what your post. Then I pretty much agree with you.
I have to confess I’m a little conflicted … for example, someone who works in my company has a kid who was born with severe developmental issues and needs lots of supplemental help at home that is not covered by insurance. We give them extra pay to help them with these high expenses.
Some people would say that we are being a very “good” employer, but from your perspective we might also be an “unfair” employer. One thing I’ve learned though … you make the decision that seems right to you at the time, but you know that you will always be subject to criticism no matter what you do. Oh well, that’s life I guess.
I know I would wince if I saw that word. I’d change it to something else.
However, I have seen men described as “paternal” (not paternalistic) or (more often) “fatherly” in the workplace. It’s usually considered a good thing. I suppose “maternal” is worse … not because of the word or the intention, but because of history.
al2simon, #372, I think the root problem of the employee with the child who has severe developmental issues is the lack of adequate insurance coverage. There are probably few or zero insurance companies that would cover the true cost in that case. If the salary supplement were gender-linked, I would have a problem with it. But presuming that it is not gender-linked, I see it as making up for a benefits short-fall. The better solution in the long run would be for insurance to cover the true expenses in such a case, and remove the boost from salary.
I also think she pissed off the law school alumni in addition to this senior faculty member. I think I read that the law review was funded by an endowment established by an alumni group. Making a major change to how a donor’s money is spent without running it by them is a pretty big faux-pas. The people paying the bills tend to get pretty angry. Especially if a big part of your job is asking them for more donations. They’re likely to tell you to go jump in the lake. Pissing off rich alums is not a wise thing, especially in a state like Florida where (I think) UF and FSU law graduates dominate a lot of the politics and the law hiring.
The 9/8 Patrice article suggests the funding and advisor changes were not retribution. This is an aspect where we should not assume. I still see no link that shows the kid was “lambasted, downright excoriated, for his choice of words,” by the dean.
A lot of endowed funding - chairs, scholarships, etc. are very old and not in keeping with the norms and ethics of today. I got the sense that this endowment for funding was decades out. I don’t think we can assume that it was pissing off current donor’s to make a change. It sounds like what Florida Law was doing with paying Review stipends was outside the norm of what is done elsewhere.
Absolutely. Change the recommendation to a man because he was more “paternal”, and watch the discrimination suits roll in.
Her letter sent out to alumni last week – sections (2) and (3) address the stipends and replacing the faculty advisor.
Whoops google docs won’t link!
Legally, beneficiary can’t change the terms of an endowment at will. Been there, worked on that. You need buy in from either representative donors themselves (with the authority) or (in the case of a family endowment,) representative heirs. When all else fails, it can go to the attorney general.
Again, we on my know the tip of this, what media and social media have said. The latter is colored by viewpoint, not necessarily authoritative, at all.