University of Georgia

Terry College of Business
 
 

Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.⁽¹⁾

Women account for nearly fifty percent of the workforce, but eighty percent of working women hold "pink collar", "traditionally female" jobs such as clericals, secretaries, administrative assistants, etc.⁽²⁾

Women account for as many as half of the professional employees of the largest industrial and service companies, yet they hold fewer than five percent of the senior management positions, and most of the senior jobs they hold are in areas such as human resources, finance or public relations, which are not positions in which they will receive critical experience expected if they are to advance to senior levels.⁽³⁾

According to a Labor Department study of nine Fortune 1000 companies, women represent 37.2 percent of all employees and 16.9 percent of managers, but only 6.6 percent of executive-level managers are women. ⁽⁴⁾

Less than eight percent of all federal and state judoes are women, less than six percent of all law partners, and less than half of one percent of top corporate managers are women.⁽⁵⁾

Women make up fifty-one percent of college instructors, but only thirteen percent of full professors, according to a recent Carnegie Foundation report, up from only ten percent in 1974.⁽⁶⁾

Women-owned companies constitute a third of the country's businesses, but account for only 13.9% of gross receipts and are awarded only one percent of federal governrnent contracts. They often have great difficulty receiving funding from banks or other loan sources which perceive them as less capable, particularly if they are going into areas traditionally dealt with by men.⁽⁷⁾

Eighty-two percent of 201 big-business chief executives asked by Fortune magazine when they would be succeeded by a female chief executive officer, said it would be unlikely in the next ten years. they said that discrimination was the barrier, because they tend to want to pass their jobs along to someone who is the image and likeness of themselves.⁽⁸⁾

Nearly sixty percent of the gender claims filed with EEOC are about advancement. Only 8.6 percent address hiring.

A study by Catalyst, a nonprofit research organization, based on interviews with senior managers and focus groups with middle managers from large corporations, indicates that women tend to be placed in staff or support positions in areas such as public relations and human resources, and are often steered away from jobs in core areas such as marketing, production and sales, because of unintentional stereotyping that labels them as people who can provide support ("Glass Walls"), yet support functions such as human resources, law or finance, typically do not offer the critical experience expected of those advancing to the senior level.⁽⁹⁾

In a 1990 poll of chief executives of Fortune 1000 companies, more than eighty percent acknowledged that discrimination impeded women's progress in their companies. Less than one percent of the companies considered remedying this discrimination a goal for their personal departments to pursue.⁽¹⁰⁾

In a recent survey of 400 female executives at corporations with $100 million or more in annual revenue, 56% said their companies never seem to promote females past a certain point (the "Glass Ceiling"), 70% said the male-dominated corporate culture is a problem, 52% said the rate of progress in hiring and promoting female executives is slowing, and 53% said women do not have the same chance for promotion as equally qualified men.⁽¹¹⁾

Women will need another 1000 years to match the political and economic clout of men, according to a United Nations report by the International Labor Organization. At the current rate of progress, women will hold equal managerial posts with men in 500 years, and reach political and economic status 450 years after that.⁽¹²⁾

Separate International Labor Organization and Worldwatch reports concluded recently that women, not men, are the family breadwinners in most of the world, where gender discrimination against women is a major cause of poverty, and women worldwide still earn less.⁽¹³⁾

On average, women make about seventy-one cents for every dollar a man makes, up from 59.7 cents per dollar a decade before.⁽¹⁴⁾

Seventy-five percent of full-time working women make $20,000 or less per year, nearly half what men make on the average.⁽¹⁵⁾

The median annual salary of women ages 40 to 44 is $22,000 for full-time work, about the same salary a 25 to 29 year old man earns as he is just starting out in his career.⁽¹⁶⁾

The average female college graduate makes the same, or less than a male with a high school diploma.⁽¹⁷⁾

In 1992, for the first time in several years, the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints at the EEOC rose slightly to 3,186.⁽¹⁸⁾

Fifty-eight percent of women 16 or older--57 million--are in the work force. About four-fifths of employed pregnant women have full-time jobs and eighty-five percent of working women are likely to become pregnant during their careers. Yet the perception remains that women who are pregnant or who have recently given birth are not reliable. A study by the Families and Work institute found that 84% of women expecting children work into the final month of pregnancy and two-thirds return to work within six months of the birth of their child, roughly a third are back within eight weeks and half within three months. Yet once they return, they often find they must prove themselves all over again.⁽¹⁹⁾

"Streaking, Mooning, Ballwalking, Leg Shaving, BellyrNavel Shots, Chicken Fights, Butt Biting". Titles of the chapters of the Pentagon report on the Navy's 1991 Tailhook convention incident of sexual harassment.⁽²⁰⁾

It was reported recently that a Wall Street investment firm heralded the arrival of new female employees with nude pin-ups.⁽²¹⁾

A high school student reported that when her class was divided by gender and assigned to decide what traits their ideal member of the opposite gender possessed, girls reported their ideal as an understanding, sensitive male. Boys wanted "a woman with a 'tight pussy', 'big tits', one who cooked, cleaned and never complained."⁽²²⁾

A study conducted by Louis Harris, Scholastic, Inc., for the American Association of University Women on 1632 eighth through eleventh graders found that eighty-one percent of them had experienced sexual harassment at some point.⁽²³⁾

In 1992 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a total of 10,532 sexual harassment complaints, up from 6,883 in 1991. Ninety percent of the charges were made by women.⁽²⁴⁾

Women account for fifty percent of all direct car-buying decisions and nearly eighty percent of new car purchases, either directly or indirectly. Research indicates that over the past twenty years they have emerged as the most potent, demographically solid buying force in the American auto industry and when they come into the dealer they know what they want and dependability is their number one priority. Yet many car ads still depict a woman in an evening gown draped over the car, and women coming into car dealers are treated with less respect than men. Chrysler is presently involved in a $38 million dollar campaign, "Customer One" in which a large part is addressing the sexist attitudes of its sales force.⁽²⁵⁾

Research shows that one in nine women will die of breast cancer, yet relatively little research has been done in the area. Much of the medical research conducted is done on men, with little attention paid to whether the results would be different if the research subjects were women.⁽²⁶⁾

A woman is battered by her husband or boyfriend every fifteen seconds. A woman is raped every six minutes. Only sixteen percent of the rapes are reported. Sixty-two percent of the reported rapes lead to arrest, and half the rapists convicted serve less than a year behind bars. Only two percent of rape victims ever see their attacker caught, tried or jailed, and more than half of rape prosecutions result in dismissal or acquittal. A rape case is forty times more likely to be dismissed than a robbery case.⁽²⁷⁾

In thirty states it is still generally legal for husbands to rape their wives and only ten states have laws mandating arrest for domestic violence - even though battering was the leading cause of injury for women in the late 1980's.⁽²⁸⁾

In the 80's, almost half of all homeless women (the fastest growing segment of the homeless) were refugees of domestic violence.⁽²⁹⁾

Seventy-five percent of men surveyed by Advertising Women of New York said that women have equal opportunity on the job. Sixty-five percent of the women said the old boy network and sexism still blocks their progress.⁽³⁰⁾

White males make up 39.2 percent of the population, and account for 82.5% of the Forbes 400 (people worth at least $265 million) 77% of Congress, 92% of state governors, 70% of tenured college faculty, almost 90% of daily newspaper editors, and 77% of TV news directors.⁽³¹⁾

Enough wires yet? Believe it or not, there is much more that could be added. These diverse bullets of information, taken virtually at random from recent stories reported in various media sources, all have one thing in common: they all reflect in some way or another, that women have a long way to go before reaching full parity in our society. As the opening piece by Frye's pointed out, each, in and of itself may mean little, but taken together, each as a wire, they form a cage of "systematically related barriers" which oppresses women and holds them close captives in our society.

What, if any, role should a business school curriculum play in addressing these matters? Is the business school curriculum partly to blame for them? Obviously, many of the pieces of information above are law or business-related, either directly or indirectly. While statistics about the workplace, women' s wages and their progression in the workplace are directly related to business, matters such as medical research or the decision to sell cars by portraying a beautiful woman draped over a car, may not seem to be. But they are, at bottom, business decisions.

Other issues such as violence against women, may be impacted by business decisions or policies we can carry out in business to affect these statistics. The marketing director who decides to go with the auto advertising campaign involving the woman, regardless of the fact that it does not appeal to, or address the concerns of the group that makes nearly eighty percent of the purchasing decisions about the autos to be sold, is a business decision. The decision of a pharmaceutical company or research and development company to put their money into research which ignores repercussions of issues on women and instead concentrates on men, or which chooses to back primarily men's health issues such as heart attack or prostate cancer, over breast or ovarian cancer affecting women, are at some level, business decisions. If we chose to link violence against women to workplace policies, as has been done with other unwanted behavior, people would think twice before engaging in such behavior.

For example, if we treated an employee' s violence against a spouse or beloved as an undesirable trait and a problem to be addressed such as alcoholism or drug addiction which required treatment as a prerequisite for continued employment, it would likely greatly impact whether employees would continue such behavior. Who makes the decision that one matter, e.g., alcoholism, is treated one way, and another matter, e.g., spouse battering, another as a matter of workplace policy? What role does gender play in how those decisions are made? Is that decision-making process for workplace policies impacted by anything which we address in our business curriculum? Should it be?

There has been a move over the past several years for the business school curriculum to become more responsive to the needs of the business community. This move has been met with mixed results. Some schools understand the need to include such courses, others do not, and resist the efforts as less than academically sound, an attack on the hallowed gates of the academic bastion, and an attempt to weaken the curriculum for the short-term benefit of "glitzy" offerings.

In principal, I disagree. We cannot deal with academic issues in the business curriculum in a vacuum. Unless we teach our students to be aware of the gender repercussions which their business decisions have, we contribute to the lamentable statistics above remaining the status quo. Whether the business school curriculum chooses to address gender issues is a bottom-line business issue.

If we are to teach our students how to run businesses efficiently, while maximizing production and minimizing liability, gender is an indispensable issue we cannot afford to ignore. When women are paid less than men for the same work, it not only means that those women earn less, it also means that they have less buying power for goods and services. Less buying power means that the producers of goods will not be able to produce as many goods, since they will not be able to sell as many because the underpaid worker has less money with which to buy goods.

If manufacturers cannot produce as many goods, then they cannot hire as many people to produce those goods as they otherwise would in the absence of the disparity. This, of course, means that there are fewer employees to pay taxes, more of a burden on those who do, and less money changing hands for the good of us all. Engaging in policies which in any way discriminate on the basis of gender is simply not good business for any of us.

There is also the matter of whether continuing to exclude consideration of these issues from the business school curriculum contributes to the oppression of women. If consideration is not given to these issues because it is not in keeping with the conceptual framework of what a business curriculum should be, then is that framework to be considered an oppressive one which by its very nature, contributes wives to Frey's cage of oppression?

A conceptual framework is a set of basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions that constitute the 'lens' through which we see ourselves and our world (Warren 1986). An oppressive conceptual framework is one in which the basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions are used to justify and maintain the subordination of one group by another. An oppressive conceptual framework typically is characterized by 'up-down' thinking, whereby what is 'up' is assumed to be superior to what is 'down' by virtue of some characteristic it has that what is 'down' lacks, and by virtue of a 'logic of domination', a moral premise that assumes that superiority justifies subordination. In an oppressive conceptual framework, simply having an 'up' characteristic justifies the dominance of what is 'up' and the subordination of what is 'down'.

It is the mission of any college or school of business to teach students how to become profitable and productive. I contend that unless the business curriculum includes, where appropriate, gender issues, it is an oppressive conceptual framework and thereby contributes to the oppression of women and engages in educating contrary to its mission. Further, I contend that any matter which has an impact upon that goal or is an impediment to its mission. Further, I contend that any manner which has an impact upon that goal or is an impediment to that objective should be addressed in the curriculum. This would, of course, include matters of gender.
 
 

It would be difficult to discuss any of these issues without touching on the matter of feminism. A feminist is generally someone who believes women should not be treated as "less than" simply because they are women. Feminism is not a dirty word. It has been portrayed as such my man who, for some reason, feel threatened by issues it addresses. There should be no such word as "feminism". There is no logical reason for anyone to believe that someone should be paid less, not be able to work at a job they are qualified for, receive less justice at the bar, less effective medical treatment, or otherwise be treated as "less than", simply because they happen to be female. This is, bare-bones, what feminism is about. Virtually all other issues in feminism arise because of this and in some way, reflect back to it. The fact that we even have a word to describe someone who feels this way is a sad commentary. It is an even sadder one to think that this word has become a derogatory term.⁽³²⁾

As Frye's quote points out, issues generally seen as feminist issues are part of a systematic network of oppression. The issue of nude photos in the workplace as a sexual harassment concern is not simply about women not wanting to see the pictures. It is, rather, about a deeply-rooted system which indicates that if these elements are present in a workplace, then there will, likely be impediments to women being full participants there. In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., ⁽³³⁾

the court credited expert testimony which indicated that when nude pictures, off-color jokes, cursing or rough language, or other similar things are in the workplace, there is less likelihood that women will be treated comparably to men when it comes to the issues of evaluations, raises, promotions, etc. It is not simply a matter of pictures up on a wall. It goes much farther, and greatly impacts a woman's ability to be treated comparably.

The term "feminism" should be recognized for what it is: an attempt to devalue, defuse, belittle, and otherwise discredit the legitimate concerns of those who believe that people should be judged on the basis of ability, not gender. Most reasonable people believe that someone should not be paid a premium for being a male or earn less simply because one is female. Most reasonable people are, in reality, feminist. They embrace the concept, though they eschew the term.

There is a role for everyone in feminism. It is not just a matter for women. Those, particularly women, who believe in the concept of equality regardless of gender should not be branded as "militants", "feminazis" "radicals", or lesbians, simply because they believe in equality. Each of these terms has been used to discourage people from embracing the concept of equality captured in the term "feminism", and the ploy has worked well. Males and females, alike, have been hesitant to join the fight for equality, and to identify themselves as feminists, for fear of being thought of as "radical".

However, we should not be detracted from the reality of the information shared above. There are serious issues to be addressed, and we, as Business Law, and Legal Environment professors have a role to play. Not only with our own classes, but also in providing input into other classes through committees we sit on, policies we vote on, and discussions we have with our colleagues. We are far too intelligent to be sidetracked from the proper course by being adversely affected by namecalling or labeling.

The better thing to do is to use such attempts to discredit the area as "teachable moments". When the occasion arises and someone questions the credibility of a suggestion made which addresses this area in a positive way, simply respond that if believing that equality based upon gender is to be taken as a negative, well, that is a sad state of affairs. If, seeing the negative impact which a sexist policy can have, it is not derided by us, then how honest can we be about anything we teach? If being a feminist is what believing in equality is called, then tell them that they may certainly call you a feminist. But tell them further, that you will not be hoodwinked by sophomoric tactics into treating the issue with any less of the seriousness, dignity and respect which consideration of any issue of discrimination which lessens workplace productivity deserves.

It may sound pompous to take this approach, but change will come only when people who sit on these committees with us, who make these decisions with us, who discuss these issues over lunch with us, begin to see that this is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, and cannot simply be reduced to a label and dismissed. Further, it is an issue which each of us, independently of what any government agency does, or any law does, can greatly impact, simply by making the personal commitment to not allow sexism in any of its incarnations, to passively go by us unnoticed, unchallenged, and, by our silence, acquiesced in.

Once people get past the labels and look at the issues, most of us are not at all far apart. The secret is to leave the rhetoric and viscereal reaction aside when responding to attacks, (which can be extremely difficult to do), and simply deal with the issues. Since much of the resistance comes from males, I will take it upon myself to say that it has been my experience that it makes virtually everyone uncomfortable to think that their wife, daughter, mother, or some other female they care about could be judged solely on the basis of gender.

If the issue is not that women make less money because they are women, but instead, that your wife makes less money because she is a woman, it has more immediacy and is more easily understood. If someone attacks the concept you espouse, as being feminist garbage, assume the negative reaction is to the label rather than the substance, and address it accordingly.

Anyone who is teaching in a college of business and is not a feminist, in that they believe anyone should be able to receive equal pay for equal work, and all its ramifications, does not need to be there. All of us are feminists, regardless of our gender. We should wear the badge with pride, not shrink away from it and thereby give efficacy to its derogatory usage.
 
 

Gender can be included in the business curriculum in many ways. We can try infusing it into each of our courses where it logically comes up. We can also propose courses which address the issue in some way. How we address it will depend, in part, upon what we are trying to do. The basic objective is to make students aware of how business decisions and policies can have gender ramifications which we have never considered; to consider them, then to move toward lessening the negative ramifications. By not considering them, we encourage students to continue the workplace practices of making decisions and policies which result in the types of negative gender ramifications provided above.

For most students, simply becoming aware of how business decisions and policies can impact women negatively will be the largest part of what must be done. Simply making them aware will be an eye-opener for most. Further, the student can discuss or investigate the reasons for the policies and propose alternatives which do not have the negative impact, or which lessen it. Hopefully, by learning this as part of the student's business curriculum, it will lead to good business practices when the student goes out into the workplace.

Gender as a Part of Existing Courses
 

Though a business school can take any number of approaches to dealing with the issue of gender in the curriculum, a well-rounded, course-by-course approach would be ideal. Students' would have constant reinforcement of the idea that gender plays a role in decisions in business, and care should be taken to not discriminate, even unwittingly.

Taking this approach also sends students the message that this is a serious and valid area of concern to be addressed, rather than a fad which happens to be in vogue at the moment. When students see the issue addressed in context, and reinforced in class after class as it relates to the subject matter, they are less likely to not take the subject matter seriously. Their misconceptions and resistance can be handled appropriately in the academic setting by providing facts and information, rather than rhetoric. There are many, many ways in which the issues arise and can be addressed in the context of existing classes.

For instance, in a Banking or Finance class, when discussing how to determine to whom loans should be given, students can look at financing patterns for women in business, or even single women buying homes. They can discuss why the loan application rejection rate for women is so high, why the amounts loaned are so low, how risk is determined for loans to men vs. women, what part of that process is judgment call which can be manipulated, what factors in making the loan decision are real, what may be accounted for as unwarranted perceptions about women, and how to address the low percentage of loans given to women in a way which will address the valid concerns of each party.

As a part of workplace productivity and management systems, Human Resources and Management classes could discuss innovative new workplace approaches to issues affecting gender. Increased worker productivity through the use of flex-time or four-day work weeks, on-site day care centers for both children and older adults, "cafeteria" approaches to employee benefits, management and evaluation styles which are less male-oriented, etc. Even something as simple as breast feeding policies have a significant workplace (and other) impact.

Breast feeding provides children with natural antibodies against infection and diseases, including lower incidence of cancer, food allergies, bacterial infection, asthma, sudden infant death syndrome, dermatitis, diarrhea, diabetes, obesity, liver and ear diseases. Women who breast-feed decrease their risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Yet, amazingly, breast-feeding has been thought of as inappropriate and sexual by most employers, and the practice discouraged. "Conventional wisdom has it that any woman who is serious about her career will bottle-feed her children."⁽³⁴⁾

That is, if she decides to have them despite the statistics we saw above about pregnant employees.

On the other hand, "[s]ome employers, like Amoco Oil in Chicago and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, are leading in a revolution. They're providing breast pumps, "pump rooms" and location consultants for their employees who are nursing mothers. The result has been healthier babies and some satisfied employees, both translating into higher productivity.⁽³⁵⁾

It is an important addition to a Human Resources or Management course to discuss issues such as this. Again, it is not just a "fringe" issue. Since eighty-five percent of the 57 million working women are likely to become pregnant, it is a serious matter of workplace productivity. Just as important as any mechanical innovation which an employer seeks out in order to be more productive and competitive, are innovations on the human resources side. Women remain the primary caretakers for families, regardless of marital or work status. Because there are thus so many issues which adversely affect women and their productivity, this area would be incomplete without a discussion of such matters.

In a discussion of labor unions, the class could discuss the relatively low percentage of women in leadership positions in labor, and try to account for it. They can also discuss the role labor unions have had in the fight for workplace discussion of issues which unions have traditionally avoided because of gender implications and what impact that position has on how those issues have been addressed by employers. Who decides what a union will fight for? For instance, would we have more on-site day care facilities if labor unions considered it a priority? Would women have equal wages? Would there be better leave policies to address the reality of women's lives, including having and caring for children and other family members?

Marketing is an area in which women have complained for years that their pleas have not been heard by business. The Chrysler Corporation's need for its $38 million "Customer One" program is a prime example. The move of Ms. magazine to a no-advertising format is another.
At the end of the 1980s Ms. magazine became fed up with a mixture of (1) the refusal of many lucrative companies to advertise in Ms. despite research showing that lucrative markets were reached through the magazine, (2) the sexist ads Ms. was required to accept in order to support itself, which ironically, was exactly the sort of thing the magazine railed against, and (3) the restrictions which were put on the ads which Ms. placed in its pages, greatly limiting the kinds of information it could provide to its readership. Various companies had contractual restrictions on matters such as what kinds of articles could be placed in the magazine, how many pages there could be between certain types of articles and ads for its product, and what certain kinds of articles, if they were allowed to run, could and could not say.

For instance, a large consumer cleaning products company did not want its ads run within a certain number of pages of articles on spouse battering because it felt the readers would be less likely to feel like cleaning after reading such an article. Considering the statistics given in the introduction about violence against women, a magazine targeting women could hardly ignore this issue, or be less than forthcoming about it. Yet to do so threatened Ms.'s advertising revenue. It finally had to make hard choices. It told the readership what was going on and asked the readership if they would support a more expensive magazine if Ms. chose to go to a no-ad format. The readership answered "yes", and Ms. has been ad-free since 1990.

The Marketing class can discuss the role of marketing and gender; whether this role changes in different settings; the impact marketing has on the availability of important information targeted to communities which may not have other widely-circulated outlets. For instance, how will women receive more than simply cursory information on the issues of how smoking or drinking may affect the health of a pregnant woman if the cigarette or liquor manufacturer will not advertise in a widely circulated women' s magazine in which such a story is published? What about information on lesbians as a part of the women's community, if advertisers will not allow their ads to run in a magazine in which the issue is discussed (another of the problems MS. had)? And women and breast cancer if there is resistance from the undergarment advertisers or pharmaceutical companies? What about the role of advertising in promoting stereotypes of violence against women, women as sex objects, women as beautiful first and brainy second (if ever)? The role of marketing and advertising in the image of women; that is, do women need to spend money on things like feminine sprays, high heels, teeth whiteners, hair permanents, etc., in order to be acceptable to society ? What does the role of advertisers depicting women as dependent upon men for approval have on the perception of women in the workplace? How does the business of marketing fit into this equation? That is, how does one balance what a marketer does, and the profit motive, against all of these other concerns?

Discussion of the court system can include why the statistics given above about rape are as they are. How state bar associations are conducting studies of gender bias in their systems and developing policies which address the gender bias found.⁽³⁶⁾

Gender bias which is reflected in everything from how judges conduct themselves toward female attorneys practicing before them, to the low number of conviction rates for crimes committed against women. How our justice system is supposedly blind, yet looking at the statistics for women coming into the system do not bear this out.

Employment law, of course, is a natural area for discussion of gender, because so many of the issues where gender inequalities show up are related to the workplace, as demonstrated above. It is important that students understand why there are laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act which went into effect on August 5 of this year, or the 1991 Civil Rights Act, ⁽³⁷⁾

or the 1964 Civil Rights Act,⁽³⁸⁾

and affirmative action under Executive Order 11246. My experience has been that students come to class laden with misinformation about these laws, which cause them to resent them and be less likely to embrace them as managers and supervisors, or to do other than the bare minimum with them.

Gender-Specific Courses

In addition to gender being taught as part of established business courses, courses may also be developed to address gender issues. Courses may range from a general course in Employment Law, to a specific course in Women, Law and Work, Women in Advertising, Women and Labor, and other such courses. While the courses may be able to cover gender issues in more detail than as part of an established course, there is a drawback. The course is likely to be perceived as a "fringe" course, and the very ones who need to be made aware of its contents, avoid taking it. It also gives the impression that these matters are, in some way, in addition to, or peripheral to the study of their other substantive courses, when the truth is, they are very much a part of the other courses students take.

If specific courses are developed, care should be taken that the business school administration not now think that the "problem" of addressing gender in the curriculum is now solved by the course being offered. It will not be Gender-based courses should be in addition to gender being addressed in other courses, not as a substitute for it. It will not do the students a service to take the isolated approach, as this is not the way in which the issues will arise in the workplace. It will, instead, arise as it does in their discussions in the other courses, that is, in banking and finance, a woman will come seeking a loan for a construction company, and the decision must be made whether to extend the loan. The other issue which must be mentioned with specialized courses, is getting approval of such courses from the administration and college curriculum committees. It may present a problem for "political" reasons, perceived pedagogical reasons, as well as for financial or other reasons.

In my own case, a course on "Women, Law and Work" which started out as a part of the Arts and Sciences' interdisciplinary Women's Studies Program offerings, to be developed and taught by me in the College of Business, ended up as a course in Employment Law. My college did not feel that it could justify such a "narrowly focused" course as "Women, Law and Work", at a time when it was scaling back its offerings otherwise, for financial reasons.

On the other hand, they also wanted curriculum coverage of the new American with Disabilities Act of 1990.⁽³⁹⁾

I was therefore asked to change the course to a broader offering. Since we had no other course which addressed these issues at all, even a course in Employment Law was a great improvement. It also had the possibility of attracting more students. Males, who may avoid a course in "Women, Law and Work", may well see the virtue of a course in Employment Law. A copy of the course proposal for the Employment Law course is attached as an appendix.

As to the politics, it is worth noting that when my course proposal first came before the graduate council, it was rejected. I had not appeared before the committee to explain the course, and there was concern that it was utterly unnecessary. When I appeared before the committee at the next meeting and explained the reason for offering the course, the question for the committee became, instead, "Wow, with such a big need, why in the world don't we have such a course already? What have we been waiting for?!". After seeing the importance of the issues to be addressed in the course, the committee was behind it 100 percent, and passed the proposal unanimously. In fact, after my presentation to the committee, setting forth the reasons for the course, its virtues were so clear that there were virtually no substantive questions. They went from thinking there was not enough subject matter to warrant a course, to wondering if I could cover it all in one quarter. Again, we all are "feminists", it's just that most of us don't see ourselves as fitting into the label. On the substantive issues, the committee and I were on one accord.

Whatever form the coverage takes, students need to learn that to become effective managers and supervisors, they need to not only know and understand these laws well, but also understand why the policies are necessary, and how they can help employers to maximize production and efficiency and minimize liability. They must embrace them in order to fill in the gaps which will inevitably occur, which will give rise to the policies they may be required to develop as a result.

The Matter of Gender in Relating to Students

Aside from the issue of actually including gender considerations in the curriculum, is the related matter of making certain that our actions as professors are consistent with our lectures on equality. Recent research indicates that even though girls and boys enter school roughly equal in measured ability, girls emerge twelve years later behind their male classmates in areas such as higher-level math and measures of self esteem. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

According to the report commissioned by the American Association of University Women
Educational Foundation, the self esteem of girls dropped nearly forty percent between elementary and high school, compared with a twenty percent decrease for boys. Something we do as educators contributes to those sad numbers.

Research indicates that we may consider ourselves as treating students equally, but, in fact, that may not be the case. A frequent attitude check may be in order to constantly monitor our behavior as professors (and thus, as role models) for unwanted behaviors. Do we allow males to do most of the talking in class? Do we interrupt females more when they are speaking? Do we ensure that our discussions of females do not always feed into the stereotypes of them? Do we think o the women wh are frequent contributors as "aggressive," "push," or "overbearing?" Do we use gender-neutral language? Do we include females on our exam questions? Do we refrain from sexist language or jokes, at the expense of females? do we conduct class in a way which makes women feel a part of the class or as outsiders? Do we demand of our students that everyone be treated fairly (and back this up by example), or do we allow jokes at the expense of certain groups? Do we equally encourage females in more involved pursuits such as graduate school, as we do males?41Do we treat faculty women as colleagues? "If faculty do not treat women as colleagues, students will not treat women faculty as members.42 And, of course, if this occurs, there is little chance of females students being treated as equals by their peers.

As educators who influence a great many people, we have a responsibility to ensure that that influence is positive, and consistent with what it is we convey by our words. Students watch what we do, how we interact with them and other students, and they view it as being appropriate. They will follow our positive example. If we do not provide it, then what we have accomplished in the curriculum will mean little.

These lessons are not only important for classrooms, but for later when students will have femasles as colleagues, clients, suprevise or supervisory employees, etc. Learning the important lessons they learn from us as professors and from the courses, will greatly aid them in handling these relationships appropriately. Doing that, of course, will enhance the workplace, maximize production, and minimize the employer's potential liability--all of which is part of what business students are to be taught in the curriculum.

Conclusion

At first glance, gender in the business school curriculum may seem to be a "fringe" issue of importance or concern only to a "raging feminist" who wants to infuse gender into everything and make it an issue of greater importance than it is. This paper demonstrates that this is not true. Gender is in the curriculum whether we choose to address it or not. The best thing we can do to prepare our students for the business world is to sensitize ourselves to the issue's presence, address the issue as it arises in our classes, make students aware of its impact upon good business practices, provide guidance for them to determine how to handle gender-related issues in the workplace, and carry through on what we teach by our classroom demeanor.

Gender should be addressed in the business curriculum. If we do not address it, we cannot complain of the kinds of gender inequalities we see which are reflective of less than stellar business practices. To not address the issue of gender in the curriculum makes us part of the problem; part of those who create the wires resulting in the "systematically related barriers" forming the cage which imprisons women in oppression. It is merely good business school policy to not continue to create those wires of awful statistics which result in the cage. Not only do we imprison a significant portion of the population, but we also do a disservice to those who pay us to teach them what they need to know in order to be effective employees, managers, supervisors, business owners and employers in the workplace.
 
 

1. ¹ Oppression", by Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality, reprinted in, Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology, Margaret L. Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins, 1992, Wadsworth Press, p. 40

2.

² Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pubs., 1992, at p xiii.

3.

³ Study Says Women Face Glass Walls as Well as Ceilings," Wall Street Journal, March 3, 1992, at p. B I .

4.

⁴ The Wage War Against Women," Working Mother magazine, June 1992, at p. 63.

5.

⁵ Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pubs., 1992, at p. xiii.

6.

⁶ Patricia J. Williams, "Blockbusting the Canon," Ms. magazine, September/October 1991, at p. 62.

7.

⁷ "Now: The Brick Wall," Newsweek, August 24, 1992, at p. 54.

8.

⁸ USA Today, September 3, 1992, at p. 7B

9.

⁹ "Study Says Women Face Glass Walls as Ceilings," Wall Street Journal, March 3, 1992, at p. B1.

10.

¹⁰ Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pub., 1992 at p. xiii.

11. ¹¹ USA Today, April 29, 1992, at p. 2B.

12.

¹² USA Today, February 5, 1993, at p. A1.

13.

¹³ Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 13, 1992, at p. H-10

14. ¹⁴ "The Wage War Against Women," Working Mother magazine, June 1992, at p. 62; The Red & Black, 5/12/92 at p. 1; The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 6/6/93 at p. H-1.

.

15. ¹⁵ Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pubs. 1992, at xiii.

16. ¹⁶ "The Wage War Against Women," Working Mother magazine, June 1992, at p. 61, citing from the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

17.

¹⁷ "The Wage War Against Women," Working Mother magazine, June 1992, at p. 62, quoting Pamela Hughes of the American Association of University Women; Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pubs. 1992, at xiii.

18. ¹⁸ "An Increase Seen in Bias Against Pregnant Workers," New York Times, January 2, 1993, at p. A- 1.

19.

¹⁹ "An Increase in Bias Seen Against Pregnant Workers," New York Times, January 2, 1993, at p. 1.

20.

²⁰ Newsweek, May 3, 1993, at p. 17.

21.

²¹ "Taking on the Great White Way: Will Recent Discrimination Suits Open the Door for Women and Minority Executives?," Newsweek, July 19, 1993, at p. 35.

22.

²² Vol. IV, No. 1, July/August, 1993, Ms. magazine, at p. 6.

23.

²³ Atlanta Journal & Constitution, June 2, 1993, at p. lA.

24.

²⁴ Vol. IV, No. 1, July/August 1993 Ms. magazine, at p. 87.

25.

²⁵ Elle magazine, 1992.

26. ²⁶ "A Woman's Nightmare: 1 in 9," USA Today, May 12, 1993, at p. 12A; "A Better Prognosis for Women's Medical Research," USA Today, September 24, 1992, at p. 6D.

27. ²⁷ "Rape in America," National Victim Center, Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, April 23, 1992; USA Today, May 28, 1993, at p. 3A, reporting on statistics unveiled after a three-year study by the Senate Judiciary Committee as it approved legislation extending civil rights protection to victims of gender-based crimes, The Violence Against Women Act; USA Today, June 3, 1993, at p. 12A.

28. ²⁸ Susan Faludi, Backlash, Crown Pubs. 1992, at p. xiv.

29.

²⁹ Id.

30.

³⁰ Wall Street Journal, May 15, 1993, at B1.

31.

³¹ "White Male Paranoia," Newsweek, March 29, 1993, at p. 49.

32. ³² Karen J. Warren, "Rewriting the Future: The Feminist Challenge to the Malestream Curriculum," Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, Feminist Teacher, at p. 46; Karen J. Warren, "Feminism and Ecology": Making Connections," Environmental Ethics, Spring 1986, 3-20.
 

33.

³³ 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. 1991).

34.

³⁴ "Bringing Breast-Feeding into Office, Hospitals," USA Today, August 9, 1993, at p. 13A

35.

³⁵ Id.

36. ³⁶ "Widespread Sexual Bias Found in Courts," Wall Street Journal August 20, 1992, at B-1; "Women Lawyers Report Unequal Treatment," The Florida Bar News, August 1, 1993, Vol. 20 No. 15 at p. 1; "Letters," Florida Bar News, September 1, 1992, at p. 2; "Groups say Court Study Biased," Athens Daily News, December 30, 1991, at p. A-2.

37. ³⁷ Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. (1991) 701, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 102.

38.

³⁸ 42 USC 2000e et seq.

39.

³⁹ 42 USC Sec. 12101 et seq.

40.

⁴⁰ The Red & Black, February 13, 1992, at p. 1.

41. April L. Gardner, Cheryl L. Mason and Marsha Lakes Matyas, "Equity, Excellence & 'Just Plain Good Teaching'," The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 51, No. 2, February 1989, at 73.

42. Patricia J. Williams, "Blockbusting the Canon," Ms. magazine, September/October 1991, at p. 63.