Within the time span of this investigation, this office was unable to thoroughly review admission policies to Ph.D. programs throughout the University system. However, it must be brought to your attention that admissions to advanced degree programs, in which employment as teaching assistants and research assistants is an integral part of the degree program, is covered under the authority of the Executive Orders. In addition, selection for teaching fellowships, assistantships, and other such positions is also covered by the Executive Orders. Harvard must monitor its policies and practices regarding admissions to programs in which there is a requirement or opportunity to teach or do research. Department heads must review all available records of female applicants for advanced degree programs giving special attention to the number of women interviewed, rejected, and accepted for candidacy in Ph.D. and advanced degree programs. As a minimum this review must cover the period since October 13, 1968. In each case that discrimination based even partially on sex is revealed action must be taken to eliminate all policies and practices which resulted in the discriminatory treatment. Department heads must determine the current availability of any female candidates who were victims of this treatment and give priority for admission to any of these candidates found to be qualified and available.

Recruitment Practices

Remarks made by department chairmen during the interviews indicated practices which contribute to the situation of women at Harvard. The department chairmen indicated that the primary recruitment sources for academic positions are professional meetings and conferences. Valuable employment information and contacts are exchanged at these meetings. This type of recruiting tends to be covertly discriminatory, because most of the information regarding employment possibilities is not available to persons who are not a part of this "select circle."

Since women are not in positions of faculty chairmen and high-ranking administrators, the "select circle" method of recruiting tends to perpetuate the present discriminatory staffing pattern. Unsolicited applications for faculty employment receive very little consideration or attention. In some cases they are filed away without comment. The University may be overlooking many well-qualified male and female applicants by this practice. However, this practice works mostly against female applicants as their qualifications may not come to the attention of the hiring authorities through any other method.

Harvard's screening committees, faculty committees, tenure committees, and ad hoc committees are assigned the responsibility for selection of applicants. All are uniformly made up of men. This is another factor which has an effect on retaining the sex composition of the Harvard faculty.

Interviews with the department chairman regarding the inclusion of women on their faculties indicated a lack of sensitivity on the part of persons who are crucial to the equal employment opportunities for women. There were indications that persons in the decision-making positions in regard to employment fo not use equal criteria in evaluating male and female applicants. In some instances they were totally indifferent to the whole idea of affirmatively seeking female faculty.

Executive Order 11246 as amended by E.O. 11375 requires that the same qualifications for employment be applied to both men and women. Many department chairmen who are aware that women are conspicuous by their absence in their departments do not realize they are required by the Executive Orders to rectify the situation by affirmatively recruiting women faculty.

A review of the computer-printouts for February 2, 1970 and August 31, 1970 reveals a decrease in women in every teaching position.

The review team has prepared a detailed breakdown of individual departments. This excerpt revealed that there are many departments without female teaching faculty. This condition implies that some chairmen deliberately screen out women applicants. The University must inquire into the hiring policies of all department chairmen. Particular attention must be given to those who have no or few women faculty. We realize that there are some academic disciplines in which there are very few women, but we are also aware of a long standing tradition of denying employment to women solely because they are women. Appropriate administrative machinery must be established to monitor the recruitment of faculty in any department which appears to screen out women applicants or recruits in such a way as to exclude them from consideration.

Salary Differences

The printouts furnished by the University indicated salary differences between men and women in most job classifications. The University's justification for this is that certain schools or departments are teaching subjects which call for unique qualifications, and therefore it is not appropriate to have a uniform schedule for determining salaries to be paid and qualifications to be met. In practice this has resulted in a consistent pattern of paying women less than men for comparable work.

Realizing that there are many factors which could justify these salary differences, the review team selected some of the employees in question and reviewed their personnel records. The following are comparisons of personnel data of corporate appointees as furnished by Harvard.

Example 1: Countway Library: 2 male and 4 female librarians. All have master's degrees. One male was a doctoral candidate in 1958. He was employed in 1958 and presently earns $20,000. The other male received his master's in Library Science in 1954, was employed in 1965 and earns $15,000. One female has two master's degrees. She was employed in 1969 and earns $7,200. Two females were employed in 1967 and earn $6,800 and $8,500. The other female librarian was employed in 1968 and earns $8,400. Each of the above received a salary increase in July 1970. The two males received increases of $2,000 and $1000. Two females received $500 each, one $600 and the other $332.

Example 2: Harvard University Press: 2 male and 5 female business officers. The bio-medical editor is a male employed in 1968. He has a B.A. degree and a B.S. degree and earns $19,500. The science editor is a male employed in 1959. He has an A.B. degree and an M.A. degree and earns $15,250. The executive editor is a female employed in 1945. She has a B.A. degree and an M.A. degree and earns $16,000. The managing editor is a female employed in 1967. 'She has A.B., S.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees and earns $14,000.

Example 3: Harvard College Observatory: 2 male and 2 female business officers. One female has A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. She was employed in 1957 and earns $8,500. She has received no promotion or change in status in 7 years. The other female has a B.A.; was employed in 1958 and earns $14,800. She has received no promotion or change in status in 12 years. The two males were employed in 1968. One received his B.A. from Harvard in 1936 and earns $17,280. The other male has his A.B. from Harvard in 1958 and earns $14,600.