The M.I.C.E. Process: A Remedy for Women Faculty Experiencing Quadruple Jeopardy

Dr. Marie Byrd-Blake

The M.I.C.E. Process: A Remedy for Women Faculty Experiencing Quadruple Jeopardy

Although women in general face tremendous challenges when engaging in patriarchal conflicts at many institutions of higher education, minority women are faced with the complex intersection of race and gender (Wenniger & Conroy, 2001). Many minority women junior faculty encounter added roadblocks that compound the enculturation to higher education further due to what is termed as double jeopardy: \being minority and female. Other variables to that equation are presented here as the term is rephrased as quadruple jeopardy and having the following components: \gender, race/ethnicity, age, and experience level. Being female, minority, young (in comparison to the establishment), and without previous higher education experience can and will complicate the higher education experience further.

Factors causing the underrepresentation of women of color in higher education may be categorized as either external factors, such as labor trends and limited pool availability, or internal factors, such as organizational behavior associated with discrimination and institutional prejudices (Flores, 2004). The Summary Report (2001) of Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities demonstrated the shortage of women of color in the pool availability. The report indicated that women received 17,901 doctorates, which represents 44% of all doctorates granted in 2001. Over 16% of all the doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens in 2001 were earned by U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups. This was in fact the largest percentage ever, and is reported to continue a steady upward trend (National Science Foundation [NSF] et al., 2001). Although the data are promising, impediments still exist that prevent women of color from continuing the journey to junior faculty status and retaining those positions into tenure. This paper will target the internal factors experienced by women of color, although there still exists many external factors that cause the short supply in higher education.

Review of Literature

Gender

The American Association of University Professors reported that, overall, women account for 38% of faculty in higher education. The Faculty Salary and Faculty Distribution Fact Sheet 2003-04 also shed light on the disparity in the representation of women in higher education. Women are most well represented at community colleges and least well represented at doctoral-level institutions. They represent 50% of faculty at community colleges, 41% of faculty at baccalaureate and master's degree institutions, and 33% of faculty at doctoral-level institutions. Further, among full-time faculty, women are disproportionately represented at lower ranks and least well represented among full professors. They represent 58% of instructors, 54% of lecturers, 46% of assistant professors, 38% of associate professors, and a mere 22% of full professors (Curtis, 2003-04).

The disparity is also evident in the salaries of full time men and women professors. Curtis (2003-04) reported that on average, women earn 80% of what men earn. The gap in salary is most apparent at doctoral-level institutions where women earn 78% of the average male faculty salary.

The cultural tradition of male dominance also prevails in the standards for promotion and tenure. From 1925 to 2000, the percentage of full-time female faculty increased only 5%, from 19% to 24% (Wenniger & Conroy, 2001).

In a study on the status of female faculty in science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] (1999), a committee on women faculty was established to analyze the status of female faculty in six departments in the School of Science . In initial efforts to establish the committee, 16 tenured female faculty sent a proposal to the dean to request review. The proposal stated, in part,

We believe that unequal treatment of women faculty impairs their ability to perform as educators, leaders in research, and models for women students...We believe that unequal treatment of women who come to MIT makes it more difficult for them to succeed, causes them to be accorded less recognition, and contributes so substantially to a poor quality of life that these women can actually become negative role models for younger women... Currently, a glass ceiling exists within many departments. (MIT, 1999)

In the findings from the study it was reported that the junior women faculty perceived that family-work conflicts impacted their careers differently from those of their male colleagues. The tenured women faculty felt marginalized and excluded from a significant role in their departments. The marginalization increased as women faculty progressed through their careers. The data also revealed that marginalization was often accompanied by differences in salary, space, awards, resources, and response to outside offers between men and women faculty with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues. (MIT, 1999, para. 7, 9, & 10)

Wenniger and Conroy (2001) summarized the status of women in higher education by asserting that higher education marginalizes women as students, administrators, faculty, and athletic leaders. In Gender Equity or Bust! On the road to campus leadership with Women in Higher Education, Wenniger and Conroy (2001) maintained that women in higher education continue to be penalized for their gender with the culprits being tradition, the good old boys' network, glass ceilings, tokenism, and a society that teaches men to disrespect women and women to settle for second best. They stated, “…the real rules are unwritten and the good old boys are reluctant to let women join their game” (Wenniger and Conroy, 2001, p.7).

Race/Ethnicity

The National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2004) reported that in 2003 15% of U.S. faculty in colleges and universities were minority. Six percent of the faculty were Black, non-Hispanic; 5% were Asian/Pacific Islanders; 4% were Hispanic; and 0.5% was American Indian/Alaska Native. The NCES continued to report that 47% of the college faculty were White males and 36% were White females. That translated to 83% of college faculty being of the majority race and a mere 17% being of a racial/ethnic minority group. When examining the data that demonstrated very low representation of minority faculty at institutions of higher education, Moody (2004) discussed significant disadvantages and significant advantages that often face minority professors working on majority White campuses. A portion of the disadvantages are detailed below.

• Minority professors in majority academic settings often must struggle against the presumption that they are incompetent.
• Minority professors in majority academic settings are often viewed as “outsiders” and, because of this, have to endure extra psychological stresses and the general feeling of not belonging. This uneasy psychological context can undermine their success.
• An outsider in academia usually receives little or no mentoring, inside information, or introductions to valuable connections and networks. Such deprivation will hamper professional growth and satisfaction.
• A minority is often thought to represent his/her whole tribe or group and, as such, has to worry that his/her behavior or performance can open or close doors of opportunity for an entire generation.
• Because minority professors must constantly prove they are qualified and worthy, they can begin to suspect that they are imposters.
• Minority professors in majority academic settings often have to spend precious time and energy deciphering the complex psychological dynamics unfolding between them and majority students or colleagues.
• Minority faculty often are unfairly constrained in their choice of scholarly pursuits and face a “brown-on-brown” taboo. (Moody 2004 pp. 12-37)

The plight of minority faculty is further documented by Turner and Myers (2000) in Faculty of Color in Academe: Bittersweet Success. The authors conducted a comprehensive review of literature on the subject of the recruitment and retention of faculty of color and utilized the research to identify common themes that illustrated the culture of academic environments of many institutions of higher education. The common themes were

1. isolation and lack of mentoring opportunities;
2. occupational stress related to the demands placed on their time and energy due to the need to have minority representation on committees;
3. institutional racism due to research on minority issues being not considered legitimate work;
4. the “token hire” misconception of colleagues who expect them to be less qualified or less likely to make significant contributions in research;
5. racial and ethnic bias in the recruitment and hiring process; and
6. racial and ethnic bias in tenure and promotion practices and policies due to evidence that the talents and contributions of faculty of color being devalued or undervalued. (pp 23-32)

These common themes are pervasive throughout the literature and are inherently misunderstood by the majority in higher education institutions as pure myth and misconceptions on the part of minority faculty. The continued documentation of these experiences by faculty of color can assist in the understanding of disparate treatment in higher education institutions, and reporting of such is more than mere perceptions and the act of “pulling the race card.”

Age

Federal anti-discrimination laws designed to protect faculty in higher education institutions include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which prohibits discrimination against faculty 40 years of age or older (Lucas & Murry, 2002). As outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( ADEA ) was designed to protect

individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA 's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA , it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment--including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1997, para. 1)

While the Age Discrimination in Employment Act focuses solely on those aged 40 years or older, those who are 40 years of age or younger have had limited avenues to protest overt and covert discrimination. In a 2004 age-based bias case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the ADEA does not empower relatively younger workers to file reverse-discrimination lawsuits. With a 6 – 3 decision, the court stated that the law was intended to protect older workers from workplace discrimination that favors younger workers (Richey, 2004). Concerns regarding the lack of equal opportunities and treatment based on youth, or the appearance of youth, has not been addressed adequately at many workplace environments. Being young in comparison to the establishment has impacted many careers in a negative manner.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported in 1998 that only 9.3% of Black, non-Hispanic female instructional faculty and staff at Title IV degree-granting institutions with at least some instructional duties for credit were less than 35 years of age. The same figures for Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic female instructional faculty and staff were 15.7% and 10.3% respectively. The study also reported the average age of all instructional faculty and staff being 49.2 years of age. For males, the average age of all faculty and staff was 50.2 years, and for females, the average age was lower at 47.4 years. The disparity in age appears more pronounced when analyzing all full-time instructional faculty and staff aged 45-54 years; NCES (2001) indicated that 50.5% of full time instructional faculty were White, non-Hispanic males; 34.6% were White, non-Hispanic females; 3.1% were Black, non-Hispanic males; 2.7% were Black, non-Hispanic females; 1.8% were Hispanic males; 1.4% were Hispanic females; 3.3% were Asian/Pacific Islander males; and 1.8% were Asian/pacific Islander females.

Unfortunately, there is limited research on the topic of perceived discrimination by faculty at higher education institutions based on their youth or appearance of youth. With such large discrepancies in age being reported, it is no surprise that many young, untenured faculty often find that older, long-standing tenured faculty are in control of the institutional culture and politics. The feelings of disenfranchisement and lack of empowerment based on younger age is a taboo subject that should garner further exploration.

Experience Level

Colleges and universities typically report that more than 90 percent of their academic budgets are in personnel costs with a large portion of that in faculty salaries. University and college administrators often mention that they invest between $500,000 and $1 million in a new faculty member (e.g., in salary, support, etc.) by the time that faculty member reaches the point of receiving or being denied promotion and tenure. Regardless of whether those amounts are precisely accurate for any given institution, the cost of selecting and supporting faculty is high. (Thomas, 1997, p. 41)

Therefore, it is essential for institutions of higher education to fully understand the complexity of the adjustment process for new hires. New faculty often need assistance balancing the requirements of course preparation, research expectations, and appropriate levels of service (Gaskin, Lumpkin & Tennant, 2004). Many new faculty enter universities after receiving very brief orientations and are expected to immediately be capable of being productive in a foreign environment. Lucas and Murry (2002) explained this phenomenon as follows:

Whereas many professions require on-the-job training and some type of structured initiation into the workplace, academics are somehow different-or so it is commonly assumed. Ostensibly, they are autonomous, self-reliant, self-directing. Opinion holds therefore they will do well and adapt to what essentially is a competitive “sink-or-swim” institutional environment- a milieu dominated, one might add, in typical situations by strong individualists. (p xi.)

It is assumed that because new faculty have attended graduate school and successfully written and defended a dissertation, they are fully capable of not only comprehending a very complex culture, but are also more than capable of immediately embarking on a successful research agenda while teaching traditional and non-traditional adult learners and participating in multiple committees and community activities.

Many new faculty members experience overload and stress from multiple demands. Rice, Sorcinelli, and Austin (2000) reported that new faculty members struggle with juggling multiple, and sometimes conflicting, professional responsibilities and achieving balance between professional and personal lives. Studies of new faculty also consistently report that faculty newcomers are isolated, perceiving a lack of collegiality that contradicts their expectations of faculty life (Menges & Associates, 1999; Rice, et al., 2000; Sorcinelli & Austin, 1992; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). These pressures and disappointments cause some new faculty members to consider leaving the profession almost before embarking on their careers. The importance of the intrinsic aspects of the work seemed to be the critical motivator for many, even when pressures cause doubt and concern (Rice, et al., 2000).

Lucas and Murry (2002) offered several pointers for institutions of higher education that will allow for a smooth transition into the professoriate:

• New faculty must be equipped with the resources needed to decipher and understand the organizational “climate” or “culture” of an institution.
• The following good indicators of a healthy work environment are ingredients for opportunities to excel: common shared sense of mission; a strong tradition of faculty governance; good faculty-administrator relations; high priority placed on meeting student needs; faculty collegiality; explicit policies and procedures; high morale.
• New faculty members need to identify what norms govern performance expectations.
• Professorial collegiality is important. (pp. 19-20)

Recommendation: The M.I.C.E. Process

The proper enculturation of young junior minority female faculty should involve a process consisting of four key components: M entoring, I nvestment, C ollaboration, and E mpowerment (M.I.C.E.). The four components of the M.I.C.E. process are not just added programs or initiatives that end in being surface band-aids for deeper wounds, but elements that require a change in the culture of the university where junior minority female faculty are nurtured and their efforts to become productive members of the university community are supported. Unlike the experiences of minority junior faculty, junior faculty of the majority race oftentimes arrive at majority White higher education institutions with a sense of comfort in knowing that their race/ethnicity will not hinder their enculturation. The M.I.C.E. process assists in increasing the comfort level of the minority faculty member while contributing to their sense of security in the university environment. Consequently, the M.I.C.E. process will lead to the feeling of “mattering.” This is a feeling that those of the majority race can be granted merely by their birthright. As defined by Smith (1994), mattering “can be described in terms of individual perceptions-the feeling that he or she matters….. It can be noticed, depended on, and appreciated” (p. 33). Smith continued by describing the five qualities that contribute to mattering: 1) attention; 2) importance; 3) ego extension; 4) dependence; and 5) appreciation. Through mentoring, empowerment, collaboration, and investment, traditionally devalued young minority female junior faculty will benefit from an environment that is positive and encouraging, and that promotes a culture where they feel important.

Mentoring

Young junior minority female faculty who do not fit the traditional academic profile should become familiar with the politics and unwritten rules governing the department, school/college, and university. Issues such as the culture of the department; the unwritten criteria for tenure and promotion; the subjective aspects of the evaluation process; ways of dealing with race, gender, and ethnic bias; and information regarding grants and publication opportunities will not be shared in formal meetings. In order to promote empowerment and ensure retention, it is imperative that institutions of higher education establish and maintain formal mentoring programs. Present mentoring programs sponsored by many institutions have done little to ease the socialization process of junior faculty. In New Directions in Mentoring: Creating a Culture of Synergy, Marilyn J. Haring, Dean, School of Education, Purdue University, stated the following on the subject of traditional mentoring programs:

…..the traditional model of mentoring has exhausted its potential to foster innovative practice, especially on a large scale. That traditional model, called grooming mentoring, is severely constrained by its hierarchical, power-laden, and dyadic nature. (Mullen & Lick, 1999, p. iii)

To move beyond traditional mentoring programs, which have not assisted greatly in increasing the retention rates of junior minority female faculty, the M.I.C.E. process outlines the purposes of an ideal formal mentoring model. First, it is important that junior faculty are supported in their personal and professional growth. Second, such programs should have the goal of attracting and retaining new minority female faculty. Third, formal mentoring models should provide opportunities for junior minority female faculty to interact with tenured faculty in an informal environment. Fourth, it is of the essence that issues regarding balancing work and family life are addressed, as well as achieving balance among scholarship, teaching, and service. Last, many new minority faculty are in need of frank discussions regarding the culture of the university and the informal political dynamics that are in place.

Lucas and Murray (2002) suggested the following features for formal faculty mentoring programs:

• a campus-wide program rather than within smaller academic units;
• a mandatory new faculty orientation;
• the recruitment of faculty mentors who volunteer their time;
• regular, scheduled meetings between a mentor and mentee for a period of time;
• an assigned coordinator of the mentoring program to monitor progress and participation; and
• group meetings between mentors and mentees to interact, exchange and discuss ideas.

The above components will ensure that junior, female minority faculty are being guided properly during a very critical first year.

Investment

The Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (n.d.) defines the term invest as “to put money, effort, time etc. into something to make a profit or get an advantage.” Investment, as a component of the M.I.C.E. process, involves putting the effort, money (salary, etc.), and time (mentoring, professional development, etc.) into junior faculty of color so that they may be profitable in their scholarship, teaching, and service, and thus, yield favorable outcomes for the university. This process begins with the salary negotiations in which many junior faculty are offered salaries that are just a fraction of the salaries they could earn in the private sector. Turner and Myers (2000), in Faculty of Color in Academe: Bittersweet Success, conducted an analysis of market force which had the greater effect on the presence of minority faculty in higher education: the attractiveness of salaries in the private sector or a scarcity of minorities holding doctorates. Their findings suggested that the minority faculty supply was significantly responsive to earnings potential in academia in comparison to Whites. They concluded that “higher salaries in academia would improve the representation of minorities in higher education” (p. 196).

Investment in the professional development of minority junior faculty is important as well. It has an impact on the overall growth and development of the junior faculty member, the department, and the institution. This professional development begins with the orientation received at the beginning of the faculty's tenure. At many institutions, this consists of a half-day inservice with introductions and welcomes from the administrative offices and a brief overview of the benefits package. At other institutions, it may include a very comprehensive one week to two week long orientation designed to expose the junior faculty to the many facets of higher education and the university in particular. Many higher education institutions do not invest in such lengthy orientations due to the cost factor. However, it may prove beneficial in terms of longevity of the faculty member. The professional development process should ideally take place on a continuous, long term basis. This entails seminars throughout the academic year on subjects such as

• effective teaching strategies,
• managing technology in the classroom,
• mentoring strategies,
• tenure and promotion,
• advising students,
• getting published,
• grant writing,
• faculty service,
• legal issues.

These “demystifying workshops” would assist in alleviating the fear of the unknown as junior faculty enter into higher education institutions with long histories and set cultures.

Madison & Huston (1996) discussed investment in terms of the academy insisting that mentoring be a process by which the institution makes an investment in the junior faculty member by acclimating them to the new work environment and by harnessing their talents and promoting their professional growth. The M.I.C.E. process requires the university/department to invest in a structured mentoring program that entails an assigned mentoring program being mandatory as an established, structured institutional tradition. The faculty mentors should be recruited from the ranks of those willing and able to volunteer their time and talents. Lucas and Murry (2002) asserted that there were questions by new faculty that only fellow senior faculty members could answer. These included performance expectations, institutional politics, faculty evaluations, time management, teaching and curriculum development, institutional and professional service, etc. Secondly, an outside/informal mentor might be necessary where factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, institutional culture, and personal issues are the focus. The junior minority female faculty must become proactive and seek those from other departments or institutions that can meet their comprehensive needs in an informal manner.

Collaboration

For minority junior faculty new to academic life and lacking extensive publishing experience, collaboration with a senior colleague on a research project intended for publication would prove beneficial. Many times this collaborative process results in the junior faculty conducting a majority of the research (as a graduate assistant would) and receiving second author status. It becomes intimidating to request first authorship from senior faculty who have future decision- making authority on the tenure and promotion status of junior faculty. To alleviate this one-sided process, the M.I.C.E. process requires departmental chairpersons to structure the research collaboration process by encouraging 1) the detailing of a specific set of assignments; 2) the establishment a work schedule; 3) deciding on a division of responsibilities; and 4) reaching agreement on how name-authorship will be assigned (Lucas & Murray, 2002). This will alleviate the junior faculty from having the burden to request such structure and will result in a more equitable distribution of responsibilities.

Empowerment

Lloyd & Berthelot (1992) asserted that there must be an exhibition of trust in the junior faculty member's ability and intelligence in order for self-empowerment to occur. Many tenured faculty lack trust in the abilities of minority junior faculty that are new to higher education. They are constantly tested and, as a result, do not develop the self-empowerment needed for success. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (n.d.) defines empower as 1) to give official authority or legal power to; 2) to enable; and 3) to promote the self-actualization or influence. Most definitions of empowerment involve a change in the state of mind of the person or people who are empowered or self-empowerment. Empowerment in the M.I.C.E. process is defined as the process of personal growth an individual undertakes whereby previous notions of lack are replaced with feelings of confidence, authority, and the freedom to achieve ones goals.

How can universities facilitate this sense of empowerment? The goal is to e mpower junior faculty members to develop the sense of authority to make decisions and to act without approval of senior, tenured faculty. This can be achieved by providing guidance and direction to minority junior faculty through formal and informal development programs. This, of course, includes the institution-specific information (where offices are located, who to contact for answers to questions, basic policies and procedures, etc.) as well as the fundamental aspects of fulfilling one's role (Lucas & Murry, 2002). The specific strategies faculty members need to employ to facilitate initial success is usually not covered in orientations. Many higher education institutions assume that minority junior faculty are professionals who are hired with a clear understanding of what the demands of the job are and how to become successful. Suggested areas of attention mirror the elements of a strong mentoring relationship: how to balance research, service, and teaching; how to balance personal/family and professional life; how to initiate a research agenda; teaching tips and strategies; the basics of publishing; the basics of grant writing; what constitutes service; and the basics of email and other university technology. Empowerment, like mentoring, disseminates the information to the junior faculty, but goes a step further to promote autonomy in thought and action. Without empowerment, merely mentoring might result in minority junior faculty feeling they must mirror the thoughts and actions of the senior faculty without strengthening their individualism.

Conclusions

For those experiencing the quadruple jeopardy of being of the minority race/ethnic group, being of female gender, being younger than the establishment, and without previous higher education experience, it is critical that internal institutional factors are put into place to ease the adjustment to the unique culture of higher education. The M.I.C.E. ( Mentoring, Investment, Collaboration, Empowerment) process provides institutions of higher education with guidance on the four components recommended as the elements of a highly needed formal support system for female faculty experiencing quadruple jeopardy. Without such formal and informal support structures, retention rates of such underrepresented faculty will suffer.

References

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2004, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Curtis, J. W. (2003-04). Faculty salary and faculty distribution fact sheet 2003-04. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.aaup.org/research/sal&distribution.htm .

Flores, S. M. (2004). Minority faculty in higher education, 1980 to 2000: Using the public policy and legal discourse to explain under-representation in U. S. colleges and universities. Retrieved April 19, 2004, from http://convention.allacademic.com/aera2004/AERA_1060_1630.PDF .

Gaskin, L. P., Lumpkin, A., & Tennant, L. K. (2004). Mentoring new faculty in higher education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74 (8), 49-53.

Lloyd, S. R., & Berthelot, C. (1992). Self-empowerment: How to get what you want from life . London: Kogan Page.

Lucas, C. J., & Murry, J. W. (2002). New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners. New York: Palgrave.

Madison, J., & Huston, C. (1996). A comparative study of faculty-Faculty mentoring relationships in an American and Australian university. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 33 (4), 316-330.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT: How a committee on women faculty came to be established by the Dean of the School of Science, what the committee and the Dean learned and accomplished, and recommendations for the future. The MIT Faculty Newsletter , XI (4). Retrieved on June 9, 2005, from http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html .

Menges, R. J., & Associates. (1999). Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2004, from http://www.m-com/dictionary/empowerment

Moody, J. (2004). Supporting women and minority faculty. Academe, 90 (1), 47-52.

Mullen, C. A., & Lick, D. W. (1999). New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy. London: Falmer Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Full-time and part-time instructional faculty and staff in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, type and control of institution, academic rank, age, salary, and household income: Fall 1999. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt235.asp .

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Digest of education statistics, Table 225: Employees in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity, primary occupation, sex, employment status, and control and type of institution. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04tables/dt04_225.asp

National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, U.S. Department of Agriculture, & National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2001). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2001  . Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago.

Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation. New Pathways Inquiry No. 7 . Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Richey, W. (2004). Court rejects reverse age discrimination. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved June 9, 2004, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0225/p03s01-usju.html .

Smith, D. G. (1994). Community and group identify: Fostering mattering. Higher Education Exchange. New York: The Kettering Foundation.

Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (1992) . Developing new and junior faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, J. R. (1997). Vision and leadership for selecting and mentoring new faculty in higher education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance , 68 (5), 41-46.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1997). Facts about age discrimination. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html .

Wenniger, M. D., & Conroy, M. H. (2001). Gender equity or bust! On the road to campus leadership with women in higher education . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

About the Author:

Marie Byrd-Blake is in her sixth year in higher education as an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Educational Administration Program, at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. She received her B.S. from Florida State University, her M.S. and Ed.D. from Florida International University, and spent 15 years in the Miami-Dade County, Florida Public Schools prior to entering higher education.