Committee on Diversity & Equal Opportunity
Academic Senate Los Angeles Division
Draft Minutes of Meeting
February 2, 2007
2325 Murphy Hall
Present: Jody Kreiman (Chair), Evelyn Chung, Sandybeth Carrillo (Undergraduate Student
Rep), Genevieve Heckman (Graduate Student Rep), Nelson SooHoo, Colin Wilson
Absent: Christopher Baswell, Rosina Becerra (Vice Chancellor of Faculty Diversity), Ines
Boechat, Jose Macias (Graduate Student Rep), Judith Mitoma, Avani Oswal
(Undergraduate Student Rep)
Guest: Barbara Lawrence (FEC Chair, Anderson School of Management), Susan Drange
Lee (Director, Faculty Diversity)
Staff: Brandie Henderson
1. Gender Equity
Chair Kreiman informed the committee that there have been numerous studies on gender
equity; they all have found evidence of faculty salary inequities. She questioned what can be
done and if anything has been done in different departments or divisions that have made an
impact. Ms. Drange Lee informed the committee that Prof. Boechat is embarking on Health
Science Taskforce for Diversity and faculty salary equity is of great concern to her. Chair
Kreiman explained that the gender equity study here at the Medical School went through 3
iterations and there is one issue that continues to plague the study, no one has been able to
quantify the productivity factor that goes into compensation.
Guest: Barbara Lawrence, FEC Chair Anderson School of Management
Prof. Lawrence informed the committee that 28 of 71 faculty in her department received a
salary increase, only 5 of them were women. Many years of experiencing and observing
gender inequities at UCLA motivated her and Prof. Carol Scott to conduct research on gender
equity at Anderson School of Management. The committee was constructed in September
2005 with the charge to conduct a study of the gender equity climate at Anderson. The goal
was to improve the research and teaching environment for all faculty. Prof. Lawrence
reported that Spring of 2005 was the first time in her 20 years at UCLA that all the women
faculty in Anderson met together. She disclosed that the women faculty do not want to go to
the equal opportunity groups for help because it causes a division within the faculty.
Prof. Lawrence explained that for several years she and Prof. Scott have been the only
women faculty to move from Assistant Professors to Full Professors. They wanted to
investigate the driving force behind the inequity. They used the MIT study as a model; they
had eight male faculty agree that the research study would be a good idea. She pointed out
that the design of the study was apart of the implementation. The investigating team was
composed of two women and two men. The study received a lot of credibility because the
two men were not sympathizer and would not falsify the findings. The Dean gave each of the
investigators a $5,000 stipend because they were not relieved from their teaching
assignment. One of the stipulations to the Dean’s support was that any results produced
CODEO Minutes 2-02-07 Page2
from the study would be confidential, a UCLA document that is not to be shared with non-
The committee interviewed the 7 women in the department and the 7 men in the department
that closely matched the women (age, rank, etc…). The department only has two junior
faculty, the investigators included the recollections of all women faculty to conceal the junior
faculty’s responses and to add to the data pool; this was consistent with what was done in
the MIT Equity Study.
The committee noted that there were two key problems: (1) Retention and (2) Difficulty of
changing faculty composition. Prof. Lawrence explained that many believe that the problem
with retention and women is that more women need to be hired. She believes that making
efforts to keep women they do have and ensuring they are happy and comfortable can
possible help resolve the issue. When asked about the availability of women, Prof. Lawrence
discloses that there is 30%-35% availability in feeder schools.
Another issue that was consistent with the MIT study was that the junior women faculty said
that they did not have equity issues, that it was a generation issue. The senior women
faculty said they thought the same thing when they were junior faculty. Many of the
untenured women described encounters that denigrate their value; they ranged from
classroom incidents, relationships with male colleagues and intimidating experiences.
Tenured women have adverse results: Most feel their opinions and contributions to research,
teaching & service are not valued; they all feel marginalized and disconnected.
The Equity Committee hypothesized that some of the contributing factors to the difference
between untenured women and tenured women are:
What were seen as isolated incidents during the untenured years become systematic,
which is discouraging and wearing for women faculty.
This accumulation of disadvantage facilitates widely-shared negative perceptions of
It also supports the inference that Anderson has few women faculty because the
good ones leave; thus, those who stay are lower quality.
The jock culture and demographic composition of MBA students lead to devaluing of
The Equity Committee made 3 recommendations: (1) Increase the % women faculty until, at
minimum, it meets the average at comparable business schools. (2) Increase retention rates
by: (a) Improving support for new faculty. (b) Recognizing and improving support for
different kinds of research and enhancing teaching environment. (c) Conducting research on
salaries, dual/career family concerns and procedures for harassment & discrimination
charges. (d) Conducting individual discussions with tenured women to address compensation
and valuation concerns. And (3) Distribute and discuss this report with all faculty.
Now that the study is over and the results are out Prof. Lawrence questions if any progress
will be made. She’d been told that they are trying but will not be allowed to do anything.
Ms. Drange Lee informed Prof. Lawrence that her study is consistent with other gender
equity studies. Retention has been the outlying issue for all of them, but the question is how
does one retain? And what is the faculty diversity in underrepresented minorities? She
explained that all underrepresented minority groups are going through retention problems.
CODEO Minutes 2-02-07 Page3
She pointed out that Anderson might want look into broadening their selection of feeder
Chair Kreiman asked if the Gender Equity Committee needed any support from the Senate.
Prof. Lawrence expressed that it would be nice if the Dean and the Department Chair are
given recommendations on what they can do, it could help support them in trying to do
something about the problem. Ms. Drange Lee announced that there is a Chair Retreat in
Arrowhead coming soon; they will address various issues, including how to recruit and retain.
Ms. Drange Lee informed Prof. Lawrence that the Faculty Diversity Office is open to
suggestions and are willing to fund grassroot groups that are trying to seed the organization
in small ways. She explained that they are trying to couple groups and/or departments that
interested in the same issues.
2. New Business
Chair Kreiman will write a letter to CODEO, informing them of the things she’s
thinking involving the committee.
o Chair Kreiman would like to schedule a March meeting.
UCAAD- Changes to APM 210- They would like to add a line to the Bio- Bib about
diversity. Chair Kreiman would like to send a letter to Senate Chair Shetty about this
issue. Ms. Drange Lee suggested that she also send a copy to Vice Chancellor Rice
and Associate Vice Chancellor Becerra, they both are interested in this topic.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm