In this edition of “Voices on U.S. Science & Technology (S&T) Policy”, we take a look at an aspect of Science & Technology Policy that – unless it makes headlines as was the case with the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action – all too rarely finds itself at the focal point of S&T Policy: the relative lack of diversity and the under representation of women in Science & Technology.

Why bother? For one, it’s simply a waste not to use a society’s full creative potential. What else shall we call a situation, where women are trained to become highly qualified scientists, but then forced to leave the profession or pursue second-rate academic careers, due to a general mind-set that still places most of the burden of the dual challenge as a parent and scientist on women’s shoulders? And is it not a sign of disregard for the myriad, innovative opportunities inherent in a truly multi-ethnic society that the number of African Americans and other minorities amongst the elite in U.S. higher education and research is still appallingly small?

As the overall numbers of Science & Engineering graduates declines both in the U.S. and the EU, it is imperative that we put an end to that sort of waste and tap into the potential of the “other half”. Many efforts have been made and are still underway to increase the number of female scientists and to increase ethnic diversity in both higher education and research. An analysis of these efforts, their results and the controversies surrounding them, highlights the complexity of the challenge. Jutta Kern, in her contribution, takes a look at what has been the longest standing effort to increase ethnic diversity, affirmative action. Affirmative action has been controversial ever since it was conceived as a way to grant equal access to higher education in the U.S., but the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has taken the controversy to new levels and has come to a daunting conclusion: the U.S. isn’t there quite yet, but ought to be there in 25 years. Sabine Pölzl has dedicated her contribution to the question of how much is actually done in the U.S. to encourage women to pursue scientific careers. She takes a look at the numbers and at various initiatives across the country.

Moving away from the challenge of creating equal opportunities for those venturing into Science & Engineering, Himangi Zanpure takes a behind-the-scenes look at the wild fires that dominated headlines in October. Her article focuses on the Bush Administration’s answer to the pressing challenges of managing the U.S. national forests. Since there seems to be little scientific consensus as to the most appropriate way of keeping the forests healthy, the arguments assertedby lawmakers as to why they follow the advice of particular experts over that of others reveals much in regards to the interests that have made it to the top of the agenda.

As always, we at the OST hope that you enjoy “Voices” and encourage your feedback.

The kind of catastrophic wildfires that recently raged in California and in the forests of western North America, leaving a trail of destruction and loss in their wake, have become a predictable annual occurrence in the United States. The summer of 2002 was one of the costliest wildfire seasons in almost half a century. It claimed the lives of 23 firefighters, destroyed more than 800 homes, scorched about 7 million acres, and cost $1.5 billion. And thus, as early as spring of 2003, experts had started preparing for a new wildfire season.

The devastation that occurred in California in the summer of 2003 was beyond even the worst predictions. The former Governor of California, Gray Davis, called it the worst and costliest disaster in California’s history: 740,000 acres were scorched, 3,600 homes were burnt and 22 people were killed. To gauge the exact magnitude of ecological damage caused by the wildfires will take months. Biologists fear the total extinction of some exotic species of insects and wildlife, native only to Southern California.

The combination of drought, high temperatures, layers of fallen debris, in some cases beetle and insect-infected trees and in the particular case of California, the Santa Ana winds that blow in from the desert turn millions of acres into tinderboxes that await only the tiniest of embers or a stray lightning strike to ignite.

The National Forests

President Theodore Roosevelt, president of the U.S. from 1901-1909, was dedicated to maintaining the Earth's environmental health for future generations. He set aside millions of acres of land for national forests, established 50 wildlife refuges, turned much of the desert southwest into farmland, and worked hard for soil and water conservation, including the preservation of existing forests.

Today there are 155 National Forests stretching across 191 million acres, about 9% of the country’s total surface area. The National Forests have an unsurpassed recreational value: there are 4,400 campgrounds, 121,000 miles of trail and 96 wild and scenic rivers. In addition, they offer habitat to many and varied species of flora and fauna. The economic arguments in favour of maintaining the pristine wilderness are the 2.9 million jobs a year that are generated by fishing and hunting alone and billions of dollars in revenues - $35 billion in the year 1999 (the last year for which comprehensive accounting was published by the Forest Service), three-fourths of which stemmed from recreational activities alone.

Wildland Management and the National Fire Plan

Over the years, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress has been critical of the management of the forest system in its various reports and has very often taken the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture to task.

As recently as April 1999, the GAO chastised the Forest Service for not doing enough to tackle the problem of buildup of “forest fuels” - brush, small trees and other vegetation - on national forest land. Over the decades, a blanket policy of aggressive fire suppression was followed, that did not allow even the naturally occurring fires to do their work. Fire is an integral part of any forest’s lifecycle as it clears out brush and restores nutrients to the soil. In its report, the GAO said, “the most extensive and serious problem related to the health of national forests in the interior West is the overaccumulation of vegetation, which has caused an increasing number of large, intense, uncontrollable, and catastrophically destructive wildfires. Past management practices, especially the Forest Service’s decades-old policy of putting out wildfires on the national forests, disrupted the natural cycle of low-intensity fires, which had periodically removed flammable undergrowth without significantly damaging larger trees.” In response, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was modified, which then formed the policy foundation for the National Fire Plan.

The National Fire Plan set itself apart from prior efforts in the sense that Congress recognized the need to sustain increased funding for wildland fire management and that there was explicit committee direction to reduce the risk of fire in the wildland–urban interface (WUI). Congress appropriated $2.9 billion for wildland fire management for the fiscal year 2001, based on the estimates that $30 billion would be needed over ten years to implement the National Fire Plan. However, the lack of reliable data on endangered areas, in particular in the WUI has made the channeling of finances to appropriate areas and the accounting for spent funds rather difficult.
Wildfires acquire tragic dimensions in the wildland-urban interface – areas, where urban growth and human development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland.

The GAO has repeatedly pointed out that the forest management is plagued by other problems, too. Firstly, Forest and Wildland Management falls under the purview of two different Departments and five different Agencies: the Forest Service under the US Department of Agriculture, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Department of Interior. Lack of coordination, consistency and agreement among the agencies, and an unwillingness on their part to modify their traditional organizational structures to facilitate better decision-making are the root cause for the policy directives not being incorporated in the National Fire Plan. For years, the five federal land management agencies mentioned above used three different computer models to identify their fire-preparedness needs.

Much has been written on the gender difference in the pursuit of scientific careers, and much has been achieved - yet, more needs to be done. While Europe has looked up to the U.S. as the model country, where the grass is greener and resources, funding and career opportunities are more easily accessible, and while the success achieved by American women with regard to scientific participation is impressive in numbers, the U.S. is still far from reaching gender equity.

It is true that in the context of education and the research labor market, U.S. women have gained visibility and their careers have profited from increased gender awareness: Today, three out of the eight Ivy League universities (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale) are headed by women. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is directed by a woman. The President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a woman. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) elected 17 women as members this year. More examples could be stated and further impressive numbers could be provided. However, numbers are deceiving when seen in isolation.

According to the 2002 NSF report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (S&E), female enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs has been steadily increasing with more women receiving advanced degrees. In the reported year, women constituted 45% of all recipients of a doctorate. This trend may seem to prove the success of past efforts. However, according to Sue V. Rosser, women continue to be significantly underrepresented in computer sciences, physical sciences and engineering, which translates into a smaller number of doctorates awarded in these fields and into an even smaller number of corresponding female faculty.

A study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1999 detected obvious disparities in the allocation of resources between male and female faculty. Two years later, the leadership of nine U.S. universities met to identify existing barriers for women in S&E and discuss intervention strategies. Across U.S. academia gender equity became an issue, thus leaving the sphere of individual concern and calling for structural reform. Surveys and reports on the status of female faculty were initiated to obtain comprehensive data.

Evidence shows that compared with their male counterparts, female scientists face a less favorable employment situation with regard to earnings and career advancement. The findings of the research presented in the NSF report Gender Differences in the Careers of Academic Scientists and Engineers confirm lingering suspicions on career limitations for women. According to this recently published report, males still hold most of the senior ranked positions in U.S. research and academia.

What is needed to overcome gender disparities in scientific careers? Do women have to adapt even better to the existing academic culture? Or should science perhaps discontinue to be conducted in a structure and under conditions that favor men?

Reflections on the glass ceiling - bridging the gap through programs and networks

Appropriate measures to facilitate women’s entry into scientific careers and to better accommodate them in academia have been on the agenda of individuals and organisations for a long time. Networks and associations have been established, grants and fellowships created, mentoring projects initiated, and information has been circulated through publications and on the internet to raise awareness and bring about change.

The Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE), a standing committee of the National Research Council (NRC), lists over 200 organisations, associations and professional societies that promote women in their pursuit of scientific careers across the U.S. (Directory of Organisations encouraging Women in Science and Engineering).

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) and the American Association of University Women (AAUW) have a long tradition of supporting women in all fields of science and engineering across the US. The latter boasts the largest allocation of funds dedicated to the promotion of graduate women.

Associations specializing in particular fields of science and engineering such as the Association of Women in Mathematics, the Association for Women in Computing, or the Association for Women Geoscientists provide networks and foster career development and advancement for women.

Universities have been trying to improve the current situation for female faculty to further attract and retain women in S&E through committees, task forces and individual projects. In a press release early this fall, Princeton University and Duke University declared their desire to effectively address existing shortcomings at their respective institutions.

Special targeted programs, created on national level for a limited period of time, focus on enhancing female participation in S&E. Under the Advance Program, funded by the NSF, institutional and individual grants were awarded in 2001 and 2002. The program aims at improved access to scientific careers for women as well as innovative approaches to encourage transformation of academic culture. A third, slightly modified round of competition is expected to take place in 2004.

The Women's International Science Collaboration (WISC) Program, coordinated by the NSF and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), awards travel grants to female scientists to promote collaboration in international research projects. Male researchers qualify to apply if accompanied by a female co-researcher.

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2002, July 2003

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2002, October 2003

Sue V. Rosser, Attracting and Retaining Women in Science and Engineering, Bulletin of the AAUP , volume 89, number 4:24-28, 2003

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Gender Differences in the Careers of Academic Scientists and Engineers: A Literature Review, June 2003

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, 1999
Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE)
Directory of Organisations encouraging Women in Science and Engineering
The American Association of University Professors: Balancing Family and Academic Work homepage

Academie online, Work-Family Roundtable Convened in Washington, Bulletin of the AAUP, volume 89, number 6:10-11, 2003

Association of American University Professors: Statement of Principles on Family Responsibilities and Academic Work

National Academy of Sciences, Office of News and Public Information, 72 New Members Chosen by Academy, April 29, 2003

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2001, May 2003

National Science Board, Science an Engineering Indicators 2002, 2002

National Academy Press, From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers (2001), 2001

Brown University, Ruth J. Simmons, President

University of Pennsylvania, Judith Rodin, President

Princeton University, Shirley M Tilghman, President

National Science Foundation, Rita R. Colwell, Director

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Mary Ellen Avery, President

The U.S. will need another twenty-five years to eliminate race as a significant factor in higher education participation – at least according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this decision, the Justices, while upholding “affirmative action”, tied its further use to an uncommon expiration date: the Court ruling allows public and private universities to continue using race as a factor in their student admissions for another 25 years. The higher-education community anxiously awaited the ruling all summer of 2003. The impact of the decision was expected to reach far beyond university life, since the issue touches upon highly sensible areas of U.S.-American society.


What’s behind affirmative action?

Affirmative action is the attempt to create good policy to countervail against racial discrimination in the U.S.. It unfolded before the background of discrimination against black Americans and was later expanded to other minorities and women. Policies to systematically help the socially disadvantaged people developed only over the last 30 years in the U.S.. Affirmative Action was implemented to deal with systematical discrimination, whether in hiring policies, in career opportunities or universities’ admission policies.
To meet the American dream of an open society the U.S. still needs to cultivate a more ethnically diverse leadership body within its institutions, as Justice Sandra O’Connor argued in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

How does affirmative action work?

Despite the fact that most of the influential positions aren’t filled by ivy-league graduates, graduating from elite schools does boost the likelihood of taking up a position of leadership in the U.S. enormously. Admission to top-notch universities is based on academic achievements and/or test scores. Interestingly, students of color and of economically disadvantaged background show lesser academic achievements than their white and/or wealthy counterparts. This phenomenon is described by the term “achievement gap”.

The Education Commission of the States, a research based, non-partisan non-profit organization working to involve key leaders from all levels of the education system, determined in a report that “black and Hispanic students are much more likely than white students to fall behind in school and drop out, and much less likely to graduate from high school, to acquire a college or advanced degree, or to earn a middle-class living”. A variety of factors account for this disparity: peer influences, access to high-quality schools, students’ racial and/or economic background, as well as their parents’ education.

The achievement gap starts at the cradle – for the ones left behind as well as for the more advantaged ones: Ivy League universities such as Harvard are far more likely to accept children of alumni than non-legacy applicants. The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) reports that while about 40 % of the applicants who are children of alumni are successfully admitted to Harvard University, the general acceptance rate is only 11 % (Admissions Preferences For Alums' Kids Draw Fire. By Daniel Golden). The choice for top schools is to a large portion driven by family traditions – a fact that is reflected by the admission policies. Known as the “legacy preference”, a lot of universities favor children of alumni in their admission systems. An overall of 10 % to 15 % of students at most Ivy League schools are sons and daughters of graduates – and this group of children of Alumni of top universities is disproportionately white. Thus it is even harder to make these “blockbusters of excellence” in higher education accessible to aspiring social groups.

It was Clarence Thomas, the only African-American Supreme Court Justice, who not only voted against affirmative action but also strongly denounced the whole measure as “the faddish slogan of the cognoscenti” that “does nothing for those too poor or uneducated to participate in elite higher education” (Washington Post, June 25, 2003: In Court’s Ruling, a Nod to Notion of a Broader Elite), a position which is underlined by a statement of Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the Congress's Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACE). For the Los Angeles Times he summed up recent findings with the words that "smart poor kids go to college at the same rate as stupid rich kids, and that's a tragedy" (Stuart Silverstein; Los Angeles Times; Jun 27, 2002). While race significantly affects social inequality in the U.S.-society, the achievement gap seems to be largely determined by socio-economic factors.

In fact, affirmative action is not relevant at most colleges. Bowen and Bok, two former Ivy League presidents, report in their book ‘The Shape of the River’ that "the vast majority of undergraduate institutions accept all qualified candidates and thus do not award special status to any group of applicants, defined by race or on the basis of any other criteria."

Affirmative Action is “mere aesthetics” - in the view of Justice Clarence Thomas - because it focuses on admission policies of a few elite schools that are not representative for the higher education system in the U.S.. Nevertheless, although neither chosen nor changeable, and whether indicator or reason, dimensions like gender and race can most seriously hamper access to good education. Academic achievements are regarded as paramount for the access to leadership positions in a society. Affirmative action to favor black and minority students in universities’ admissions was upheld by the Supreme Court as one way to ethnically diversify the group of people who hold influential positions in the U.S. society.

Proponents’ and Opponents’ Stances

Affirmative action has always been controversial. The debates sourrounding it become especially complex because the dividing line between opponents and proponents does not necessarily reflect partisan or racial borders.

Justice Clarence Thomas is joined in his objection to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion by large parts of the affluent African-American community. Astoundingly enough, the strongest opposition to affirmative action comes from this side. Rather than regarding affirmative action as an appropriate measure for achieving equality, this community conversely claims that affirmative action inhibits their possibilities to take part in the academic competition as equal partners.

Since admissions to high-ranking universities and colleges are very competitive on the basis of test-scores, favoring students for reasons other than personal achievements (such as affirmative action) is extremely controversial to both those who gain an advantage and those who don’t.

The Supreme Court decided on affirmative action because of two lawsuits (Grutter vs Bollinger; Gratz/Hamacher vs Bollinger) filed against the University of Michigan challenging its admission system. The undergraduate admission system granted an advantage of 20 points out of the 150 points “selection index” to underrepresented minorities, economically disadvantaged, athletes, or graduates of a predominantly minority high school.
The University of Michigan's law school, the defendant in the second case, does not utilize an overall score system in its admissions. Instead, it uses a base-score that is weighed by “soft” factors, an approach to achieving ethnical and social diversity among qualified students that – although holistic - lacks transparency. Both models, however, favored students of color or minority status over others. Thus the lawsuits were framed on the grounds of reverse discrimination.

On June 23rd, 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the undergraduate admission system as too mechanistic but affirmed the one used by the law school. Critics claim that this ruling – by upholding the less transparent admissions system - makes it even more complicated to determine how race influences admissions.

Both, proponents and opponents, have presented their cases with strong arguments. Finding conservatives like Norman Schwartzkopf, the General leading the first U.S.-war on Iraq, amongst affirmative action’s most fervent supporters, is as astonishing as identifying African-Americans as some of its strongest opponents. Schwartzkopf claims that the U.S. military depends on affirmative action to increase diversity in its officers-cadre. During the Vietnam War the morale of the troops was seriously jeopardized by the asymmetric ethnic distribution of leadership, when entire minority-fed battalions were commanded by Whites. Thus affirmative action is even referred to as crucial to national security.

Those in favor of affirmative action recall many years of discrimination that benefited Whites and therefore say that granting advantages to minorities is still much needed and more than fair. Nevertheless, in the view of the opposing community the goal of granting equal rights has already been achieved. “Fairness” seems to be a crucial term to the understanding of the whole matter. Still, it doesn’t make things easier.

For the individual high-achieving black student raised in an affluent community, it appears to be unfair that his personal academic achievements seem to have an “affirmative action”-tag permanently attached – simply because everybody tacitly assumes that he or she owes the the achievements to affirmative acction. On the other hand there is “fairness” on the larger scale of the U.S.-American society and its institutions. This is the context,in which the Supreme Court’s ruling was set. The decision encourages systematic measures that allow less achieving social groups to keep up with the more advantaged ones. In other words, the rule supports affirmative action as a way to take the society to the point, where only individual merits will be taken into consideration when judging academic achievements. With the recent ruling, the Supreme Court no longer bases the case for affirmative action on grounds of past discrimination but rather tries to shape the future.

Until the recent decision on affirmative action the Supreme Court’s “Bakke decision” of 1978 created binding precedence for race-conscious admissions to universities, which declared the use of quotas for minority admissions as unlawful. At the same time, however, race could still be considered as a factor for achieving diversity in hiring decisions by U.S. universities.

Ways to bridge the achievement gap

Affirmative action is only one way of several ways of fostering diversity in academic programs. As a measure that primarily helps with admission to elite-universities it does little to close the achievement gap. Thus, this kind of affirmative action seems to somewhat put the cart before the horse. However, affirmative action isn’t restricted to race-consciousness but can focus on different aspects.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights lists models that target socio-economic factors as race-neutral alternatives in the 2003-report “Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education”. Thus they crosscut through the race-bias by aiming at low-income students.

One of the most established alternative models to affirmative action is the “10-Percent-Plan” practiced in Texas. Implemented when President Bush was still governor of Texas, this plan guarantees admission to the state university of their choice to the top 10 percent students of each graduating high school class in Texas. Thus it avoids explicitly addressing racial matters. Nevertheless, the plan achieves racial diversity since the student body is fed by racially segregated high schools. As a side effect this policy also assists economically disadvantaged white students from predominantly rural areas.

Florida, governed by Jeb Bush, the President’s brother, uses a similar plan with its “Talented 20 Program”: All public high school seniors graduating within the top 20 percent of their class are guaranteed admission to a state university.

California eliminated race-preferential programs in response to a state referendum (Proposition 209 effective November 6, 1996) and currently uses a complicated mixture of class ranking and “eligibility” scores. This ethnically most diverse state recently launched the discussion to implement the “colorblind society”, a concept that would stop the collection of any race-related data. Furthermore, according to demographic estimates Hispanics will become the majority by 2030, and they will compete with African-Americans for influential positions. Critics of this concept claim that the social inequality determined by race and ethnic heritage won’t just vanish by not looking at it anymore.

Diminishing race as a factor of social inequality is the goal in the larger picture of the affirmative action ruling. The Supreme Court’s decision strongly suggests that there is still much need to even out race-based inequalities. The message of the decision is that the United States has not yet arrived at the envisioned stage of a society offering equal opportunities for all citizens - certainly a judgment that doesn’t fit with the notion of the American dream. Nevertheless, America strives on towards the fulfillment of this dream and will re-evaluate its progress in 25 years.

Jutta Kern holds a Ph.D. in sociology and is Senior Officer with the Office of Science & Technology. She can be contacted at kern@ostina.org.


Selected Resources for Further Information

People

• Lee Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan
  
• Barbara Grutter, Plaintiff
  
• Patrick Hamacher, Plaintiff
  
• Jennifer Gratz, Plaintiff
  
• Justice Sandra O’Connor
  
• Justice Clarence Thomas
  

Selected Articles and Comments

• Is Race a Focus? by Robert W. Ethridge, President of the American Association for Affirmative Action
  
• “Affirmative Action: There is a third Way” by Richard D. Kahlenberg, Washington Post, March 31, 2003)
  
• Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. March 2003
  
• The Biggest Barrier to College Isn't Race. By KERMIT L. HALL, The Chronicle of Higher Education, issue dated June 20, 2003
  
• How affirmative action helped George W. By Michael Kinsley. Monday, January 20, 2003
  
• Admissions Preferences For Alums' Kids Draw Fire. By DANIEL GOLDEN. The Wall Street Journal Online
  
• Rising Costs Pricing Millions Out of College, Committee Says Education: Estimates are that more than 4 million qualified graduates this decade won't be able to go to four-year schools. STUART SILVERSTEIN; Los Angeles Times; Jun 27, 2002; pg. A.22

Legal Resources and History of Affirmative Action

• The History of Affirmative Action Policies
• The Origins of Affirmative Action, by Marquita Sykes, NOW – National Organization for Women
• Barbara Grutter, plaintiff vs Lee Bollinger, Jeffrey Lehmann, Regents of the University of Michigan, and the University of Michigan Law School, defendants No. CIV.A.97-CV-75928-DT, lodged the claim at the United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division on Aug. 17th, 1998
• Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, for themselves and all others similarly situated, plaintiffs, versus Lee Bollinger, James J. Duderstadt, The University of Michigan, and the University of Michigan College of Literature, Arts and Science, defendants, lodged the claim at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
• The Bakke decision (Regents of the University of California versus Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (USSC+)

Other Resources of Interest

• U.S. Supreme Court
  
• U.S. Department of Education
  
• American Association for Affirmative Action
  
• William G. Bowen (Princeton University) and Derek Bok (Harvard University): The Shape of the River. Princeton University Press, 1998.
  
• The University of Michigan's admissions process