![\"STEM](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/st-300x133.jpg\")
professional organizations, then in-depth interviews with selected survey participants. By participating in the study, professional organizations not only guaranteed that their members will be represented in the broad results of the survey, but they also received a summary of their member\u2019s answers to a small subset of the survey questions.\u00a0 The summary provides some insights into the beliefs and experiences of our members, specifically concerning their places of work, but does not provide any of the details that researchers expect to glean from follow-up interviews with a smaller sample of the survey participants.\u00a0 (Note that for most of this analysis, only respondents who were employed at the time were included, with graduate students included only when comparing responses across employment sectors.)\u00a0 The goal of this post is to share the results in the summary received by the AMS.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The survey results<\/strong><\/p>\n The (unfortunately unsurprising) findings include that women and respondents with disabilities report significantly less positive experiences than men and respondents without disabilities \u201con nearly every measure <\/em>of marginalization and professional devaluation\u201d examined in the study, and that there is \u201ca pattern of negative experiences\u201d for LGBTQ individuals.\u00a0 On various measures there were significant differences found when comparing responses of white participants with those of Asian participants and with those of Black participants.\u00a0 There were also significant differences found between Hispanic\/Latinx responses and non-Hispanic\/Latinx white responses.\u00a0 All of these results were analyzed controlling for employment sector, education level, and age.<\/p>\n In many ways, however, the survey responses paint a rather positive picture of mathematics as a profession.\u00a0 The researchers report that among the respondents, personal experiences of harassment are relatively low, and that across demographic groups, respondents generally feel that their work is respected by their colleagues and that their supervisors treat them with respect. Respondents on average believe their bosses give them the credit they deserve and that they do not have to work harder than others to be given the same professional recognition.\u00a0 Few respondents reported high levels of LGBTQ bias in their workplace (though this could be due to the lack of visibility of LGBTQ status), and the majority of respondents did not observe instances of workplace unfairness toward persons with disabilities (though this could result from low numbers of visibly disabled coworkers).\u00a0 While these general trends suggest that members of the AMS tend to have positive experiences in their workplaces, this was certainly not universal and, as described above and detailed in the following, significant differences were found when comparing responses between different demographic categories.<\/p>\n Legitimate Professional<\/strong><\/p>\n On the question asking participants to rate their level of agreement (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) with the statement \u201cI have to work harder than my colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate professional,\u201d the average response for each demographic group falls between \u201cdisagree\u201d and \u201cneutral.\u201d\u00a0 Yet, women are significantly more likely than men, Hispanic\/Latinx respondents significantly more likely than non-Hispanic\/Latinx white respondents, LGBTQ respondents significantly more likely than non-LGBTQ respondents, respondents with disabilities more likely than respondents without disabilities, and both Black and Asian respondents are more likely than white respondents, to agree that they have to work harder to be perceived as a legitimate professional.\u00a0 (In the figures throughout this blog, all of which were provided by the STEM Inclusion Study, significance is denoted as follows: ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05, \u2020p<.10, two-tailed test.)<\/p>\n Standards for Promotion<\/strong><\/p>\n Survey takers were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement \u201cI am held to the same standard as others for promotion and advancement.\u201d\u00a0 This is an important question, since there is a tradition of viewing academic mathematics as a meritocracy and 79% of these respondents work in colleges and universities.\u00a0 All comparison groups averaged between \u201cneutral\u201d and \u201cagree,\u201d yet, women, LGBTQ respondents, and respondents with disabilities agreed significantly less strongly than men, non-LGBTQ respondents, and respondents without disabilities, respectively.\u00a0 In particular, it should be noted that none<\/em> of the groups averaged near \u201cstrongly agree,\u201d all falling at most slightly less than \u201cagree.\u201d<\/p>\n Harassment<\/strong><\/p>\n An important finding is that women, Hispanic\/Latinx respondents, and respondents with disabilities reported significantly higher frequencies of being harassed verbally or in writing on the job in the last year, than men, non-Hispanic\/Latinx white respondents, and respondents without disabilities reported.\u00a0 Further, in rating the frequency with which a co-worker \u201cmakes a negative comment or joke about women, racial\/ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people, or people with disabilities,\u201d significantly higher frequencies were reported by women, Hispanic\/Latinx respondents, LGBTQ respondents, and respondents with disabilities.\u00a0 \u00a0More generally, the researchers found that Hispanic\/Latinx and Asian respondents \u201cwere significantly more likely than their white peers report that their competency and value was questioned in their workplace and experience professional devaluation and marginalization.\u201d<\/p>\n Workplace Fairness<\/strong><\/p>\n The researchers compared questions concerning what they call \u201cworkplace fairness\u201d across the employment sectors: academic, for profit, and \u201cother employment.\u201d\u00a0 On questions asking whether or not women, racial\/ethnic minorities, or LGBTQ individuals in their workplace must work harder to convince people of their competence there was no significant difference between these sectors.\u00a0\u00a0 On the other hand, there was a significantly smaller proportion of respondents with \u201cother employment\u201d who reported witnessing person(s) being treated differently at work due to gender in the last three years.\u00a0 The same is true with \u201cgender\u201d replaced by \u201crace\/ethnicity.\u201d<\/p>\n That said, the actual numbers in the workplace fairness section of the report should serve as a wake-up call to those of us who like to think that the inequities are few.\u00a0 The researchers found high proportions of respondents across the different employment sectors \u201creported systematic biases in their workplaces and reported witnessing differential treatment in their organizations in the last three years.\u201d\u00a0 Specifically, 27.5% of respondents reported that women in their workplaces must work harder than men to be viewed as competent and 17.9% of respondents believe the same for people from racial\/ethnic minorities. \u00a0Further, 27.3% of respondents overall reported personally witnessing individuals\u2019 being treated differently due to their gender, and 14.4% of reported individuals\u2019 being treated differently because of their racial\/ethnic minority status.<\/p>\n The responses from graduate students are even more striking.\u00a0 For example, 36.6% of graduate students reported witnessing individuals\u2019 being treated differently due to gender in the last three years, 24.1% reported witnessing individuals\u2019 being treated differently due to race or ethnicity, and the proportion of graduate students who reported witnessing individuals\u2019 being treated differently due to LGBTQ status, though much smaller, was twice that of the non-student academic employees.<\/p>\n Additional Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n At a request from the AMS Committee on Women in Mathematics, we asked the researchers to add some additional questions to the end of the survey given to the sample of AMS members.\u00a0 We learned that 29% of respondents have on-site childcare services at work and 63% are covered by a policy allowing parental leave.\u00a0 About 73% reported that they are aware of policies promoting diversity and inclusion at their place of work, and about 51% are at a workplace that offers training or mentoring in working effectively with a diversity of people.<\/p>\n Final Thoughts<\/strong><\/p>\n Personally, I am both encouraged and saddened by these results.\u00a0 As I wrote above, the overall results paint quite a positive picture, yet when looking at the disaggregated data, it is clear that mathematics has a long way to go.\u00a0\u00a0 Each of us needs to remain vigilant in the workplace and to work to find ways of stopping inappropriate behavior by our friends and colleagues.\u00a0 We also need to look at ourselves to see if we are unwittingly contributing to the problem.<\/p>\n Graduate programs need to acknowledge that inequitable treatment of students due to gender, race, ethnicity, or LGBTQ status is a problem and that they need to identify ways to address it.\u00a0 It is the responsibility of the department and institution to provide a safe, harassment-free environment for the students.\u00a0 I\u2019d like to encourage departments with graduate students to do their own internal, anonymous surveys, preferably combined with some interviews, to obtain more details about their own situations.<\/p>\n I want to acknowledge the fact that the differential treatment found in this survey may well Most important, though, is the fact that we now have some data.\u00a0 It is far from perfect: some of the questions seemed poorly worded and the lack of the input from the individual interviews is frustrating.\u00a0 Although the data don\u2019t paint a detailed picture, they do provide us with information beyond the anecdotal.\u00a0 This snapshot of the AMS members\u2019 workplace experiences, though far from complete, is enlightening and useful.\u00a0 I want to thank all of the AMS members who took part in this study.<\/p>\n I am looking forward to the researchers\u2019 final report(s), drawing together the input from members of a wide range of STEM professional organizations.\u00a0 \u00a0All too often, mathematics is left out of STEM-focused studies and programs.\u00a0 It\u2019s good to know that members of both the AMS and the MAA (possibly along with other mathematics organizations) have made sure that mathematics is being well-represented in this national study.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\nFig 1: \u201cI have to work harder than my colleagues to be perceived as a <\/strong>legitimate professional.\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/fig1.png\")
Predicted Probabilities of employed respondents, by gender, race\/ethnicity, LGBTQ and disability status<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0net of differences by sector, age, and education level. <\/em><\/strong>(1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)<\/em><\/h6>\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fig 2: \u201cI am held to the same standard as others for promotion and advancement.\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/fig2.png\")
<\/strong>Predicted Probabilities of employed respondents, by gender, race\/ethnicity, LGBTQ and disability status, net of <\/em><\/strong>differences by sector, age, and education level. <\/em><\/strong>(1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)<\/em><\/h6>\nFig 3: \u201cA co-worker makes a negative comment or joke about women, racial\/ethnic <\/strong>minorities, LGBTQ people, or people with disabilities.\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/fig3.png\")
Predicted Probabilities of employed respondents, by gender, race\/ethnicity, LGBTQ and disability status, net of <\/em><\/strong>sector, age, and education level. <\/em><\/strong>(1=Never, 2=At least once in the past year, 3=At least once a month or more)<\/em><\/h6>\nFig 4: Proportion of respondents by sector who reported witnessing person(s) <\/strong>being treated differently due to gender in last three years. <\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/fig4-1.png\")
Predicted Probabilities of employed respondents by employment sector and graduate students. <\/em><\/strong>(Proportion who agree between 0 and 1.)<\/em><\/h6>\n![\"Equality](\"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/inclusionexclusion\/files\/2018\/11\/equality-300x225.jpg\")
include behaviors and activities meant to address disparities that already exist in our system — what is sometimes referred to as \u201creverse discrimination.\u201d\u00a0 Rather than ignoring such beliefs (and sometimes accusations), we need to explain and make clear that we are working towards equity, and how and why equity differs from equality.\u00a0 What may appear to be preferential treatment, is simply an attempt to \u201clevel the playing field\u201d and to undo errors of the past (and, all too often, of the present).\u00a0 We should make clear that our final objective is for all<\/em> of our students to achieve their mathematical goals, and that equity is an important step to this end.\u00a0 (This picture is from the Interaction Institute for Social Change; the artist is Angus Maguire.\u00a0 I prefer, but don\u2019t have rights to the version at https:\/\/www.scc.losrios.edu\/equity\/f-a-q\/<\/a> .)<\/p>\n