Assessing progress to address faculty gender and racial inequities

Dear colleagues,

At April’s faculty meeting, I gave an update on MIT’s response to landmark reports that uncovered how gender and racial inequities impact our faculty: the 1999 Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT and companion studies led by faculty in the other schools, as well as the 2010 Report on the Initiative for Faculty Race and Diversity.

I write today to share our assessment more widely so that together we can celebrate our progress and identify collective strategies to address the essential work that remains unfinished.

What the original reports found 

By seeking out clear data and sharing it with fearless transparency, the authors of the 1999 and 2010 reports shone a light on how faculty members from underrepresented groups, including women, experienced MIT. The studies are exhaustive and compelling, a mix of stark findings and resolute calls for data-informed action. 

Even at this distance, the authors’ courage and conviction are inspiring. I believe we are especially indebted to Nancy Hopkins, Professor Emerita of Biology, and Paula Hammond, Institute Professor and Vice Provost for Faculty. Their exceptional leadership made the 1999 “Hopkins Report” and 2010 “Hammond Report” possible. 

From the studies' many insights let me underscore just these key takeaways:

• During the drafting of the 1999 report, the percentage of women faculty in the School of Science hovered around 8% and had not changed significantly for “at least 10 and probably 20 years.” The report also highlighted numerical data showing significant discrepancies in the treatment of male and female faculty across several dimensions, including salary and space.
• The 2010 study found that compared with white faculty, a disproportionate number of faculty who are members of underrepresented racial ethnic groups left the Institute without promotion, and that faculty from underrepresented groups were half as likely to be promoted to assistant professor and associate professor levels.

A colleague at April’s faculty meeting recalled that the reports’ power sprang from the rigorous analysis the authors conducted and from how openly our community reflected on the problems they identified. For MIT to foster the diverse breadth of faculty excellence that is critical to our mission, we need that same collective embrace of data and transparency, dialogue and action again.

Assessing where we have and haven’t made progress

About a year ago, a working group of faculty leaders and Institutional Research (IR) staff began to assess progress on the reports. While this analysis points to a number of persistent challenges, on the whole the results are encouraging – a shared achievement in which we can all take pride.

Here are some headlines from our findings.

Composition/recruitment

The percentage of newly hired women faculty grew from 14% (N=7) in 1991 to 51% (N=23) in 2023. The percentage of newly hired faculty from underrepresented racial ethnic groups during those years increased from 6% (N=3) to 20% (N=9).

In 1991, women made up 10% (N=97) of MIT’s faculty; faculty from underrepresented groups stood at 3% (N=28). In 2023, 28% (N=300) of our faculty were women and 10% (N=112) were from underrepresented groups. 

In short, our updated findings confirm that MIT has fulfilled a 2004 faculty resolution to increase the percent of faculty from underrepresented groups by roughly a factor of two. That said, we arrived at the goal a full decade later than the supporters of the resolution had hoped.

Our analysis also examined changes in leadership composition. We found that, in 2005, 17% of faculty department heads or lab/center directors were women and 4% were faculty from underrepresented groups. In 2023, those figures stood at 26% and 9% respectively. Among the top leadership positions, such as members of Academic Council, 29% were women in 2005 and 14% were faculty from underrepresented groups. In 2023, those figures were 36% and 18%.

Compensation and space

IR, with the assistance of a faculty advisor, has been conducting a regression analysis of faculty salaries since 2011. Outcomes are reviewed annually by senior academic leaders and the Institute Community and Equity Office (ICEO) to ensure compensation is based solely on performance. Over the past 13 years, we have found no statistically significant salary gaps disadvantaging women or faculty from underrepresented groups.

Professor Emerita Hopkins famously used a tape measure to highlight inequitable office and lab space distributions between female and male faculty in the 1999 report. Last year, IR examined Institute space data. Our models show that square footage is associated with a faculty member’s number of supervisees and department, lab, or center appointments, research volume, and discipline. Race, ethnicity, and gender were not found to be significant predictors of the amount of space assigned to faculty.

Retention

The 1999 study noted that the “the pipeline leaks at every stage of the career” for women in science. As I described above, the retention picture for faculty from underrepresented groups in the 2010 report was even more bleak.

To assess changes in faculty retention since the original studies, we conducted a cohort analysis of women and faculty from underrepresented groups, dividing them into three 10-year groups of faculty hired as assistant professors between 1991 and 2020. The results describe three outcomes for each 10-year cohort:

1. The number of faculty who remain at assistant or associate professor without tenure (AWOT) status
2. The number who received tenure
3. The number who left MIT without tenure / before tenure

The bottom line for the earlier two cohorts is that for both women and faculty from underrepresented groups, we saw gaps in the tenure rate, with more men and more faculty from non-underrepresented groups receiving tenure. Some members of the most recent cohort are still moving along the tenure track so our information is incomplete. At present, we know that 24% of male faculty members in the 2011–2020 cohort have left before receiving tenure compared to 20% of female faculty, and 23% percent of faculty from non-underrepresented groups have departed compared to 24% of their faculty colleagues from underrepresented groups.

Importantly, we don’t have a complete understanding of the reasons faculty choose to leave. Are departures correlated with MIT’s climate and culture? Or are professional opportunities or personal reasons driving faculty decisions?

Faculty experience

Junior women faculty told the authors of the 1999 report that they believed family obligations could affect their careers differently than for their male colleagues. The 2010 report highlighted negative experiences for faculty from underrepresented groups stemming from the sense that some in our community believe “the intentional inclusion or recruitment of a minority faculty member might, in some cases, represent a lowering of standards.” The report’s authors recommended fostering a culture at MIT that recognizes how diversity advances rather than dilutes excellence. 

To explore how the MIT experience for women faculty and for faculty from underrepresented groups may have changed in the years since the two reports, we examined recent Quality of Life survey results, in particular respondents’ level of agreement with the statement, “At MIT, I am treated with respect.” In 2024, 73% of female faculty respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with that statement compared to 83% of male faculty respondents. Eighty percent of faculty respondents from both underrepresented and non-underrepresented groups agreed with the statement. We need more clarity about the experiences that informed these responses, specifically for women faculty.

Partnering on what comes next

With this reassessment in hand, our next steps are clearer:

• To maintain the progress of the past several decades, we need to encourage greater adoption of successful recruitment and retention strategies.
• We know that ongoing monitoring of resource allocation decisions helps to prevent inequities based on race or gender.
• We must close the gaps in our understanding about why some faculty choose to leave MIT as well as why we see differences in quality of work-life experiences. As first steps, we will interview faculty who’ve chosen to depart to learn more about their reasons as well as conduct faculty focus groups to drill down into the differences we’re seeing in Quality of Life survey data. 

I encourage you to read about our initial plans to respond to what we’ve learned. Please share your questions or insights on the updated analysis and the path forward by emailing vprovfac@mit.edu.

Above all, I encourage you to join us. Vice Provost Hammond will advance our efforts to ensure continued, meaningful progress. We both hope to benefit from your partnership as we embark on the next phase of this important work.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Barnhart
Provost