Women in Engineering and Computer Science: Why Still So Few?

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) released new research recently underlining how women continue to be underrepresented in engineering and computer science.  The research also identities solutions that can help increase the number of women in these important fields (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 26, 2015). 

Currently, women make up just 12% of the engineering workforce and 26% of the computing workforce.  In 1990, women made up 35% of the computing workforce, a drop of 9%.  Women in engineering have increased slightly by 3%, from 9% in 1990.  Yet, women make up more than half of our nation’s population and 57.3% of enrollments in institutions of higher education, according to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics.  In the next several years, women are projected to be well over 60% of the enrollments in colleges and universities.  (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp).  

The percentage of women who receive bachelor’s degrees in engineering increased slightly to 19.2% in 2013, up from 1% in 1970. Women earning bachelor’s degrees in computing make up only 18.2%, which is now half of what it was 30 years ago.

When you consider minority women in engineering, the picture is much more dismal.  African American women make up 1% of the engineering workforce and 3% of the computing workforce, while Hispanic women hold just 1% of jobs in each field. And it is much worse for American Indian and Alaska Native women who make up only a fraction of a percent of each workforce (http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation).

So why are there so few women in engineering and computer science?  The answer can be found in the gender biases and stereotypes that exist in our society.  The AAUW research suggests that:

• Women in engineering and computing often report feelings of being isolated and unsupported.
• “Stereotype threat” - or the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about being female - has been shown to result in decreased interest and sense of belonging in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
• Women strongly value helping others, and coupled with their perceptions of engineering and computing jobs as lacking those social opportunities may turn women away.

Additionally, the AAUW report mentioned one study which asked “science faculty to evaluate résumés that were identical except for the candidates’ names. The researchers found that scientists were more likely to choose a male candidate over an identical female candidate for a hypothetical job opening at a lab. Both female and male scientists also offered a higher salary to the male candidate and were more willing to offer him mentoring opportunities.”  In another study, mention in the AAWU report, “potential employers systematically underestimated the mathematical performance of women compared with men, resulting in the hiring of lower-performing men over higher-performing women for mathematical work” (http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation). 

The research conducted by AAUW suggests several changes that can be made by universities and employers: 

• Introduce the idea of engineering and computing at an early age, and expose girls and boys to positive female role models in both fields.
• Encourage employers to maintain fair and consistent management practices, be aware of gender bias, and promote diversity.
• Make engineering and computing more socially relevant by emphasizing its societal benefits in college curricula and the workplace.
• Provide opportunities for female engineering and computing students to tinker and build confidence in their design and programming capabilities.

I recall many years ago when I was asked to create a successful program to increase the number of underrepresented students in engineering and computer science.  My boss, at the time, was primarily concerned with Hispanics, given that they were the largest minority at that particular university.  In creating the program, I argued the need to include women since they were underrepresented in those fields.  The boss expressed little concern in including women in the program.  I presume this was a subtle form of gender bias, since the boss was male.   However, once I showed him the enrollment data of women in engineering and the fact the organization that was initially funding the program was also interested in women, he reluctantly agreed to include women.  The women in the program, as I recall, were some of the best students with some of the highest grade-point-averages.  Companies were dying to hire my female graduates. 

The bottom line is that we must make the necessary changes to the educational and work environments to welcome and celebrate women.  We must provide females with mentoring and a supportive environment both in the university setting and in the work place.  We must minimize or hopefully eliminate gender bias.  We must help women understand the positive impact that they can have on society with degrees in engineering and computer science.  We must provide monetary incentives in the form of scholarships for women to enter, remain, and graduate in these fields.  When hiring, employers must pay women the same salaries as men for the same engineering and computing jobs.  By 2022, the United States will need 1.7 million more engineers and computer scientists.  Let’s make sure the women are fairly and equally represented.

Sexual Assaults and Concealed Handguns on College Campuses

Last year, I wrote several times about sexual assaults on college campuses.  It is a hideous crime that should not be tolerated in our society.  It is surprising and shocking that more colleges and universities are not doing enough to minimize or hopefully stop sexual assaults on campuses across the country.

Gun rights advocates such as Women for Concealed Carry or Students for Concealed Carry are capitalizing on this fear and are pushing legislators in many states to pass laws that would allow students to carry concealed handguns on campuses.  Their premise is that if a college student was allowed to carry a concealed handgun on campus, fewer sexual assaults would occur as the student carrying a handgun would be readily able to defend herself. 

But first, let’s look at some facts.  Currently three states; Colorado, Idaho, and Utah; have enacted laws which allow anyone to carry concealed handguns on campus.  Five other states; Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, and Wisconsin; have laws allowing concealed handguns on campuses, but the laws in those states permit the colleges or universities to restrict where the weapons may be carried (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015). And as you can imagine, none of the college or university administrators in these five states have allowed concealed handguns to be carried on their campuses.  Additionally, nine other states allow guns on campuses, but only in locked cars in parking lots.

Gun rights advocates are using sexual assaults on campuses to push for concealed handgun carry laws to be passed by legislatures in many states.  They claim that if women on college campuses were armed fewer rapes would occur.  In fact, legislators in ten states; Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming, are hoping that this argument will help them get concealed carry laws passed in their states (New York Times, February 18, 2015).  

One such bill is being considered by Nevada legislators. Nevada Assemblywoman, Michele Fiore, Republican and sponsor of the bill said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015)  Assemblywoman Fiore is garnering lots of attention, both for and against, for her comments.  Ms. Fiore points to the rape of Amanda Collins by a stranger on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno in 2007.  Ms. Collins has testified before state legislatures in Nevada and other states advocating the right to carry a concealed handgun on campus. She has claimed that had she been carrying a handgun that night, there is no doubt in her mind that she could have stopped the attacker.

Let’s consider some additional facts.  Most sexual assaults on college campuses are not done by strangers.  In fact:
   •    Ninety (90) percent of the sexual assault victims knew the perpetrator,
   •    Eighty-four (84) percent of the perpetrators were students,
   •    Seventy-eight (78) percent of the assaults involved alcohol, and one in three victims were drunk, passed out, or asleep. 
   •    Nearly three-fourths of the victims in the campus sexual assaults were attacked in their freshman or sophomore year.
The data were gathered by United Educators, an insurance and risk-management firm, which examined 305 claims from 104 colleges it insures involving alleged sexual assaults of students from 2011 through 2013 (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2015).

In another study conducted by Christopher P. Krebs, senior researcher at RTI International, a nonprofit research group, 5,446 undergraduate women were surveyed at two large public universities.  He found that women on a campus were typically assaulted by a trusted male friend while both were under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both and not by a stranger while walking across the campus.  Mr. Krebs states that this is not a situation in which a woman would likely have easy access to a pistol or to summon much will or capacity to use one.

Another interesting fact to consider is that federal law prohibits the ownership of handguns by anyone under the age of 21.  This means that a very large percentage of undergraduate students on college campuses would not be allowed to own a handgun.  Given this and the fact that nearly three-fourths of the sexual assault victims on campus are freshmen or sophomores, passing a concealed handgun carry law would not help the vast majority of these sexual assault victims.

One interesting note to point out is that a spokesman for the advocacy group Students for Concealed Carry, Michael Newbern, said he was not aware of any case of a student who had used a concealed handgun to prevent a campus sexual assault. However, it should be noted that assessing the impact of concealed handgun carry laws on college campuses is difficult as these regulations are relatively new.

As a former president of a university, I have spoken to many university presidents, other administrators, faculty, and police officers about this issue. And not a single one has been in favor of allowing students, faculty, staff or the general public to carry concealed handguns on their campus.  Handguns do NOT belong on a college campus.  I have discussed this matter many times with campus, city, and state police officers and sheriff’s deputies and again not a single one have been in favor of allowing people to carry concealed handguns on college campuses.  Police officers have told me that when confronted with two or more people with firearms they are trained to immediately take control of the situation by disarming by any means.  Police officers when faced with two people pointing pistols at each other or, more importantly, shooting at each other will not stop to ask who the person is with the concealed handgun carry permit and who is the bad guy.  They will control the situation by neutralizing the people carrying the handguns and if that involves having to shoot, they will do so to protect their own lives and those of their fellow police officers.

Finally, one good bit of news is that the military academies; the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy; recently reported a drop in sexual assaults. In 2013-2014, 61 sexual assaults were reported compared to 70 the previous year.   However, in the report released by the Pentagon, 40 percent of those students who reported sexual assaults also complained that they had faced retaliation for reporting the incidents (Chronicle of Higher Education, February 11, 2015).

Students on college campuses are going to experiment with alcohol and drugs.  However, a college campus is certainly not a place where students should mix alcohol, drugs, and handguns.  And state legislators should not give licenses to students to indulge in such a mix. 

Sexual Assaults on College Campuses

Two months ago I wrote about sexual assaults on college campuses. I provided some startling statistics such as 1 in 4 women (25%) will be victim of a sexual assault on college campuses during their academic career.  This is totally unacceptable. 

This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation explicitly requiring colleges and universities that receive state funds to more clearly define consent in students’ sexual encounters.  The new law ushered in the concept of “yes means yes” rather than “no means no,” which has been the norm.  What this means is that students must now seek affirmative consent from their partners before a sexual encounter and maintain the affirmative consent during the activity.  The law states that consent can be revoked at any time and the absence of “no” is insufficient to give permission to have sex.  

One of the important provisions of the California law is that it requires colleges and universities to create comprehensive training and outreach programs for everyone on campus.  California’s colleges and universities are responding quickly.  The University of California System has developed an on-line training and information module and requires all students to complete the module before they can register for courses.  Furthermore, the University of California and the California State University systems have already changed and adopted policies that are consistent with the new law. 

One of the key criticisms college administrators face is that their policies against sexual assaults do not clearly define consent.  Federal and state legislators and victims’ rights activists have been applying increasing pressure on colleges and universities to strengthen their sexual assault policies. At the core of the criticism is how consent is defined or in some cases not clearly defined.

The crucial part of “yes means yes” is that it shifts the burden of proof from the victim of a sexual assault to the assaulter.  Instead of the victim having to prove that she said “no” to sexual activity, the accuser has to prove that the victim clearly consented to the sexual activity.  Too often our judicial system puts the blame on the victim rather than on the perpetrator.  You often hear comments like, “No wonder she was raped, look at how she was dressed.”  We all understand that one of the basic rights in our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty.  However, in cases of sexual assault, it is time we require the perpetrator to prove that affirmative consent was given to engage in a sexual activity.  We need to stop blaming the victim.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, began tracking sexual assaults complaints on college campuses.  Since then, the number of complaints has tripled from 11 to 33.  And 33 complaints are just through the first half of 2014.  What is more disconcerting, according to the Office of Civil Rights, is that about three quarters of the sexual assault complaints were dismissed or administratively closed.  The Office of Civil Rights categorizes sexual assaults as Title IX complaints.  Sexual assaults now represent nearly 30% of all Title IX complaints.  This dramatic raise is what has legislators and the public alarmed.  One sexual assault on campus is too many, but 33 are utterly deplorable. 

A few colleges have already implemented affirmative consent as part of their sexual assault policies. One such school is Grinnell College.  Grinnell’s policy states that “consent to engage in sexual activity must exist from the beginning to the end of each instance of sexual activity. Consent is demonstrated through mutually understandable words and/or clear, unambiguous actions that indicate a willingness to engage freely in sexual activity.  Consent to one form of sexual activity does not constitute consent to engage in all forms of sexual activity."  Grinnell’s policy is clearly stated and sets the bar high.  All colleges and universities should emulate Grinnell’s policy on sexual assaults, so that consent is clearly defined. 

Congratulations to Grinnell College and the other schools who have taken a proactive approach to clearly define consent.  More governors and state legislators should follow the example that California Governor Jerry Brown has established and send the strong message that sexual assaults will not be tolerated on college campuses.  College and university administrators should more clearly define their sexual assault policies to include affirmative consent.  This would go a long way to ensuring that our daughters and sons are safe on college campuses. 

Sexual Predators on College Campuses

Prominent in the news today in the nation and especially in higher education is the problem of sexual assaults on college campuses.  The issue has become so big that it is now considered a crisis.  Just pick up any newspaper or weekly periodical to confirm that sexual assaults are now a major national problem across colleges and universities.  For example, the cover of Time Magazine May 26, 2014 issue reads “Crisis: Sexual Assaults in Higher Education.”

First, let me be clear, sexual assault and rape is not right.  Perpetrators should be convicted to the fullest extent of the law if guilty.  We as a society should not tolerate rapists. It is totally unacceptable.

Consider some frightening national statistics compiled by the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assaults as reported by Sarah Lawrence College:

• 1 in 4 (25%) women will be a victim of a sexual assault on college campuses during their academic career.
•  At least 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim.  
• 48.8% of college women who were victims of sexual attacks did not consider what happened to them as rape.
• More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to approximately half of all violent crime victims.
• On average, at least 50% of college students’ sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use. In a national study which reported a represented sample of college students, the result found that 74% of perpetrators and 55% of rape victims has been drinking alcohol prior to the assault.  In a survey of high school students, 56% of girls and 76% of boys believed that forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances.  

National attention has been drawn to this issue and has captured the ire of federal legislators.  On Wednesday, July 30, 2014, a bipartisan group of eight senators led by Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced legislation, Campus Safety and Accountability Act, to curb sexual assaults on the nation’s college and university campuses.  The guts of the bill would impose stiffer fines for colleges if they don’t comply with federal rules. The legislation is aimed at flipping current incentives that result in what is being called “sweeping sexual assaults under the rug” to better protecting and empowering students and holding both perpetrators and institutions accountable for sexual assaults.  The bill would also require colleges to conduct surveys to determine the severity of the problem and gives the U.S. Department of Education the power to punish colleges that don’t comply.  It would also take away the power of athletic departments to handle investigations of athletes and require colleges to designate “confidential advisers” to coordinate support services for sexual assault victims.

The legislation comes just a year after a Senate subcommittee released a survey showing that 41% of a sample of 236 colleges had not conducted investigations of alleged sexual assaults during the last five years even thought some of these colleges had reported sexual violence incidents during the same time period.  This is precisely why legislators are upset and are taking action. “Colleges now have no incentive to keep accurate records of sexual assaults” said Sen Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the sponsors of the bill, “we are flipping the incentives” … “Underreporting will have stiff fines and real teeth.” 

Last year Congress passed the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act.  This new law requires public and private institutions of higher education to increase transparency about the scope of sexual violence on campus, to provide more information about standards in college conduct proceedings, and to provide campus- and community-wide prevention education programs.  These new polices must be in place by this fall.

The counter reaction by colleges is represented by Terry Hartle, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities in Washington Hartle called the legislation "a pretty heavy-handed approach."  He goes on to say that "Sexual assault cases on college campuses are often incredibly difficult to resolve.  I think some of the sponsors believe universities do not want to do the right thing."

Having been a president of  a public university, I, for one, took sexual assaults very seriously, making sure the victim(s) received the appropriate services and counseling, the incident(s) were properly investigated, and the alleged perpetrator(s) prosecuted, if the facts in the case warranted.  I can assure you that every college and university president in this country takes sexual assaults very seriously and takes the appropriate actions. In almost all cases it is up to the campus police and the district attorney to determine if charges are to be filed and what charges will be filed, based on the facts of a given case. 

However, one has to consider that not only does the victim have rights, but also the perpetrator.  One of the basic  tenets of our legal system and that of colleges’ judicial process is the right to due process.  Due process is rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and states that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possession… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” This has been expanded by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years to include the right to a hearing of peers, notice of the charges, right to present evidence and call witnesses, the right to know the opposing evidence, the right to cross-examine opposing evidence and witnesses, the opportunity to be represented by an attorney and other provisions.  I can tell you that every university adheres to the principle of due process in sexual assaults and other incidents that occur on campus.

Terry Hartle’s comments initially can be viewed as defensive on the part of those of us in higher education.  My own experience as a president it that Terry is correct in stating that sexual assault cases on campus can often be very difficult to resolve. Gathering the facts take time and often the victim is reluctant to talk or provide evidence.  On the other hand, the perpetrator often times provides a counter story and evidence suggesting that the sex was consensual rather than forced.  Many campuses now have cameras in the hallways of residence halls and always provide irrefutable evidence that a crime was most likely committed.  It is clearly important that Presidents of colleges and deans of students do the right thing in sexual assault cases by following the colleges’ policies and procedures, applying due process and, if the evidence suggests, push for prosecution.  I believe that every college president in our country does the right thing.   if not, I can assure you he or she would not be president for long. 
 
I have a 17 year-old daughter who will start her senior year in high school this fall.  Having worked in higher education almost all of my entire career, I know intimately what happens in colleges and universities, especially at parties where alcohol and drug use and abuse leads to many sexual assaults. In a time when there is a 25% chance of female students being sexually assaulted, a sober discussion by administrators needs to be started immediately.  I certainly have begun to seriously ponder this question, and will be advocating for more action by college and university presidents in future articles. My daughter will be entering college next year, and I want to know, as a parent, that she will be safe.