The Changing Faces of Leadership: Social Class, Opportunity, and Women of Power

The Changing Faces of Leadership: Social Class, Opportunity, and Women of Power

By: Brittany M. Williams

When I decided I would write about the intersections of social class and women in higher education, I knew that I wanted to focus on diversity in leadership. While choosing a topic of focus was relatively easy, writing about it has been much harder. I have found myself starting to write, stopping, and starting over again. At one point, I even found myself questioning my own credibility and credentials. What makes me qualified to write about women and leadership? I continued by questioning everything I have done as an advisor, social justice educator, and self-care advocate. I stared at myself in the mirror and soon realized that I was taking part in the very acts I hoped to dismantle and was yet again reminded that I was not functioning outside the hegemonic systems of oppression we reproduce daily, but rather operating within them.

One of the things that is becoming abundantly clear to me as a woman of color who has sought various leadership positions is how many women I stand beside, tweet, and interact with who are trailblazers. At any given moment, there is someone who identifies as a woman of color, of working class background, first generation, or some combination of all of these socio-demographics (and more) that I belong to, contributing to the changing landscape of Student Affairs, among other fields. This is, of course, good news for women and young girls aspiring to move through the ranks. However, clear divisions of opportunity mar these successes, and this is especially true for working class and first generation women.

In higher education specifically, women comprise of more than 57% of all undergraduate students at American universities, including first generation students (Pew 2013). Students of the latter demographic, however, are four times more likely to drop out than classmates from homes where a parent has a college degree, thereby making the connection between leadership opportunities and class and access as significant as ever (Pew 2013). There is no way of knowing if the young woman who dropped out, transferred, or changed her dreams due to microaggressions and social pressure could have been the next Shirley Ann Jackson, Elizabeth Garrett, or ACPA president. Until we bridge the gap between the number of women entering higher education, and the number of women with untapped potential who drop out at a higher frequency than their classmates of other backgrounds, we will continue to lose and ultimately limit the pool of potentially qualified women.

Of the women who choose to remain and ultimately obtain academic success, many more go on to leave academia and attribute their departure to the well-documented systemic oppression entrenched in higher education. In 2014, higher education, like many spaces, remains a very well off, ableist, cis-gendered, heterosexual, Christian, white, male dominated space (Staravakapoulou 2014). A space, then, that was not necessarily designed to support individuals from diverse religions, socioeconomic statuses, or women of color and white women alike, is an almost automatic deterrent to further pursuit of high risk positions (read: leadership). While this is interesting for a number of reasons, of particular significance is the fact that women have made up the majority of college classrooms since the 1980s, yet higher education leadership does not reflect this (Lapovsky 2014). In fact, only 26% of college presidents are women in a population where women make up more than half the base and less than 25% of the bases’ leadership (ibid). To say it plainly, more and more women are getting a seat at a table, but rarely are they at the head of “the table” where final decisions are made--decisions that will ultimately go on to impact all members of an organization (or system if you will) especially women. Creating space for women to contribute provides opportunities to share perspectives that may not be otherwise heard. If women, however, can not thrive in spaces where there are at least basic understandings of the institutional, social, and political ramifications of past and current injustices, what does this mean for women in fields and departments that are less likely to discuss these issues? This is a question for which I personally do not have an answer, but one that some scholars are working to understand.

In thinking about how all of these things align, I want to point out that the unique positions of Student Affairs, and especially those who serve as advisors, sit at the cornerstone of the collegiate experience.  As some of the first advisors to undergraduate students and young professionals, it is critical that we consider, reimagine, and eventually create new avenues through which we can both reward and support students, faculty, and staff across the gender spectrum. For women in particular, it is important that we do our due diligence of coaching women into leadership positions on and off campus as equally as often as we assist them with planning and (re)declaring their majors, consistent campus commitments, etc. This is especially critical as women continue to fill the majority of seats in positions considered of or relating to caregiving-positions that are among the lowest paying in the country (Ward 2013). As reported in the Washington Post, men tend to dominate the ten most remunerative majors while women dominate the lowest; the top two of which are especially telling (Kessler 2014).

Top Two Most Remunerative Majors;

   1.         Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male

   2.      Mechanical Engineering: 90% male; Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male [Tie]

Top Two Least Remunerative Majors:

   1.         Early Childhood Education: 97% female

   2.         Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female

The fact that these fields end up this way is not a matter of chance or interest by gender. If there is anything I have learned working here at Georgia Tech, it is that there is not a shortage of women who want to pursue STEM, or even women who want to tackle and take on great responsibilities. What is abundantly clear, though, is the lack of encouragement, opportunity, and commitment to retention on the part of institutions to ensure greater equality along gender lines (Dominica 2009, Staravakapoulou 2014). As women in Student Affairs (and Academic Affairs, for those at institutions where the two are not under a shared umbrella), we must ensure that we are not only advising women into opportunities, but also aware of the impact our advising could have. It is quite possible that the things we say, though we try to do our best, may reinforce ideologies that sometimes push women out leadership. Knowing the signs of these unintended consequences, are first steps in rectifying them.

Though much of what I have written here is specific to women, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that the fight to diversify higher education leadership, and upper management in general, along the gender spectrum is not the responsibility of women alone. Men are equally as responsible in contributing to this fight, not only because it is a practice of good allyship towards women, but because it is good for business too. Right now is the perfect time to start (or continue) carving out paths for women now entering the field of higher education. It is time that we start to see women in power as a norm, rather than an exception, and to continue to work to make sure others can be that norm. Equally as important as the number of women holding these high level positions is the number of women who can envision and imagine a space in leadership of their own, and having women in leadership is critical to this endeavor. 

References:

 Dominica, Francessca, Fried, Linda P, Zeger, Scott L. (2009) So Few Women Leaders. Academe http://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.VFGwh0tvUds

Kessler, Glen (2014, April, 9) President Obama’s persistent “77 cent” claim on the wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating. Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/

Lapovsky,Lucie (2014, April, 13) Why So Few Women College Presidents? Forbes.  Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lucielapovsky/2014/04/13/why-so-few-women-college-presidents/

Pew, Adrienne L. (2013, October, 13) Encouraging first generation college students.  USAToday. Retrieved from:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/31/education-college-students-income/3324393/

Rivard, Ray (2014, April, 24) Grating expectations. Inside Higher Ed.  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/24/female-leaders-colleges-report-discouragement-can-be-role-models

Staravakapoulou, Francesca (2014, October, 26) Female academics: don’t power dress, forget heels - and no flowing hair allowed. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/oct/26/-sp-female-academics-dont-power-dress-forget-heels-and-no-flowing-hair-allowed?CMP=new_1194

Ward, Kelly Eddy, Pamela L. (2013, December, 9) Women and Academic Leadership: Leaning Out.  The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/WomenAcademic-Leadership-/143503/

Brittany M. Williams

Georgia Institute of Technology

Brittany.Williams@housing.gatech.edu

@Ms_BMWilliams