Disbanding the Old Boys’ Club: Strategies for Departmental Gender Equity

As the #MeToo movement gained momentum in 2018, a collective formed among political scientists to examine the discipline’s issues using the same lens. This #MeTooPoliSci collective, together with the American Political Science Association (APSA), distributed an online survey that asked respondents to identify obstacles that hinder the success of women ¹ and to share effective solutions. In July and August 2018, APSA solicited participation from all members with support from the Women’s Caucus and the APSA Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. Although the solicitation noted that the collective was particularly interested in learning more about women’s experiences, the invitation to participate was open to any political scientist or APSA member regardless of rank, affiliation, or employment status. The survey yielded 392 participants, of whom 282 identified as female, 107 identified as male, and three identified as other or transgender (Stapleton and Michelson 2021). The results are consistent with previous studies: explicit bias and structural discrimination are major obstacles to women’s advancement, and departments must evolve to effect meaningful changes. Specifically, women are disproportionately burdened with service commitments and experience bias in student evaluations of teaching (SETs) when compared to their male colleagues, which can have negative consequences for promotion. In addition, the lack of transparency in decision making and resource distribution hinders the ability of women to effectively perform their professional responsibilities. As such, the #MeTooPoliSci survey confirmed the lived experiences of women in political science and informed the recommendations presented here for male political scientists to mitigate these obstacles in support of women in their department.

As part of the survey, respondents had the opportunity to complete open-ended queries about institutional and disciplinary support and policies, as well as to provide suggestions on how to address gender-based discrimination and harassment. The survey also included questions about personal experiences with discrimination and harassment and about potential solutions for these issues. Of the 392 participants, 242 responded to at least one of these “Obstacles and Support” questions (i.e., 182 female, 57 male, three other or transgender). In response to a prompt asking participants to consider obstacles that women face at their institution, ² 56% (i.e., 122 of 218 respondents) referenced issues related to explicit bias (e.g., service burdens and bias in SETs). These results corroborate research that already established the gender imbalance in faculty service demands (Mitchell and Hesli 2013; Pyke 2011) and detailed gender bias in SETs (Chávez and Mitchell 2020; Martin 2016; Mitchell and Martin 2018), both of which hinder the research productivity and promotion of women.

To effect the cultural shift needed to alleviate heavy service burdens, departments should adopt service-tracking point systems that are rooted in equity, transparency, and fairness as outlined by “The Faculty Workload and Rewards Project” (O’Meara 2018). For example, departments can improve transparency and provide actual data to facilitate conversations about equity by creating work activity “dashboards” where faculty can access basic information about advising loads, class sizes, committee work, and administrative roles (O’Meara 2018). The support and participation of male colleagues are crucial to the success of this approach. Male colleagues also can take action at the departmental level by sharing research confirming gender bias in SETs when they serve on hiring and tenure and promotion committees and by encouraging the formal adoption of a holistic approach to assessing teaching effectiveness. In the classroom, men can inform their students of the potential for gender biases in SETs before administering them, which mitigates that bias and its negative impacts in evaluations of women faculty (Peterson et al. 2019). These types of actions do not require men to give up their privilege but rather allow them to use that privilege to work cooperatively with women to implement changes that benefit both women and men (Subašić et al. 2018).

A majority of participants (i.e., 142 or 65%) also referenced issues related to structural discrimination (e.g., pay inequality and lack of transparency in decision-making processes), again corroborating existing research. Studies have shown that women are more likely to “leak” from the pipeline (Dryfhout and Estes 2010), suffer economic consequences from the gender pay gap (Bleiweis 2020), and express dissatisfaction with institutional support for work–family balance (Deutsch and Yao 2014). Although stopping leaks along the pipeline requires an enormous change in educational institutions’ culture and operations, male colleagues can take direct action that will improve women’s experiences. In response to a prompt asking for supportive practices, ³ a female respondent stated that “One of my male colleagues of the same rank shares any and all information with me about his salary, negotiations, and evaluation letters. It has empowered me to speak out when I know I am being treated differently.” Men can share information about their salaries, professional development and/or start-up funds, merit raises, and other funding to which they have access or have been offered, and they can advocate for equity adjustments when there are discrepancies (Cheng et al. 2018). If they are in a position to influence or make hiring decisions, men should set clear expectations regarding negotiation norms (Cheng et al. 2018). Pay transparency helps to close the gender pay gap (Bennedsen et al. 2020).

As another step, men can commit individually to opening the “old boys’ club” to include women in decision-making processes, information sharing, and mentorship networks and to invite them to serve as coauthors, guest speakers, and panelists. As another female respondent noted, “The culture of patriarchy is firmly entrenched in our higher administration (President, former Provost, etc.), which prioritizes networks/relations within the old boys’ club.” By supporting women through information sharing and meaningful inclusion, male colleagues can provide access to networks and informal knowledge. Of course, increased inclusion may create additional pressure on women if their disproportionate service and teaching loads are not acknowledged. This tension between inclusion and burden further supports the recommendation that departments should implement systems to recognize the allocation of work in pursuit of accountability and equity. Additionally, departments could reward (rather than punish) faculty who take on higher service loads with course releases, pay raises, research support, or other forms of compensation (Pyke 2011).

As another step, men can commit individually to opening the “old boys’ club” to include women in decision-making processes, information sharing, and mentorship networks and to invite them to serve as coauthors, guest speakers, and panelists.

Men can be allies by directly confronting perpetrators of sexism and expressing their disapproval. However, this type of action requires that they recognize when sexism is happening. Men may find it particularly challenging to recognize subtle or benevolent sexism, which makes it difficult for them to act as allies (Drury and Kaiser 2014). As such, departments should provide training so that male allies can be more effective in recognizing sexism and empowering them to speak up. An intervention in which men write reflectively about privilege and then watch a video about how men benefited from male privilege has been shown to reduce support for sexist behavior (Case, Hensley, and Anderson 2014). Teaching men about the bystander helping model (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, and Goodwin 2008) and having them participate in an experiential learning intervention about the harms of subtle sexism in the academic workplace (Cundiff et al. 2014) also help. Armstrong and Ghaboos (2019) provided a list of everyday actions that men can take to be gender allies, such as talking about “fairness” instead of “bias” and raising concerns in ways that minimize reactance. Departmental leaders should clearly communicate what men should do when they witness something inappropriate—whether they should challenge the inappropriate behavior or make a formal complaint. Men who confront sexism are seen as more credible than women and their complaints more legitimate, possibly because they are less likely to be seen as acting out of self-interest—but only if the male ally is not perceived to be a member of a disadvantaged group (Drury and Kaiser 2014). White cisgender men, in other words, are especially effective allies.

We are not saying that women need to be rescued. We are saying that men should be working cooperatively with women in fighting sexism. As one male respondent noted, “My women colleagues are all superstars who excel in research, grant seeking, and teaching. They don’t need support; they need a reduction in opposition. But that opposition is tenured and in positions of power. So they struggle needlessly.” Oppressed groups should not be solely burdened with the work of improving our communities and pushing back against bias and discrimination; men also have a role to play. By pursuing the actions outlined in this article, men can be role models for other men on how to act as allies to women through individual action and advocacy.

We are not saying that women need to be rescued. We are saying that men should be working cooperatively with women in fighting sexism.