An Academic QuestionAuthor(s): Richard KellySource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), p. 265Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239777 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to AAUP Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:48:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

same financial needs as men, they should receive equal annual benefits. In fact, two federal agencies - the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission - have issued conflicting guidelines on this issue. The former agency calls a benefit program equitable if either the cost of pro- viding the benefit or the amount of benefits received are equal. The latter has asserted that it is not a defense against a charge of discrimination that the cost is equal if benefits are unequal. What precisely the phrase "un- equal benefits" means awaits further administrative and judicial review.

After prolonged investigation of a wide spectrum of issues and points of view, the Subcommittee concludes that equity considerations in the last analysis demand the standard of equal pay for equal work. Equal total life- time benefits appear most consistent with that standard because, as indicated above, equal annual benefits for women would require larger employer contributions for women than for equally situated men. The Subcommittee notes that efforts must continually be made to improve the actuarial tables to take account of new information on two fronts: the identification of variables in addition to age and sex that affect mortality experience and the possibility of future change in the significance of the sex variable as the roles of men and women change.

The Subcommittee recognizes that there continues to be considerable controversy about this issue; the entire area requires additional study.

The Subcommittee will undertake to assure the prepara- tion of an extensive discussion of this subject for a sub- sequent issue of the Bulletin.

Part VIII: Conclusion

The Subcommittee wishes to conclude this report by restating a fact that frequently gets lost in discussions of

specific features of the operation and structure of TIAA and CREF: Those college and university faculty members who are covered by TIAA-CREF are participants in one of the finest retirement programs available in America. Its combination of immediate vesting, complete portability, and current full-funding has become the standard to which other plans aspire. The recommendations contained in this report are made in the light of this excellent record, and in the spirit of the continued mutual search for even better service to the profession.

The Subcommittee wishes to thank the officers of TIAA-CREF for the time, information, and courtesy ex- tended to us in our work. The interaction between the Subcommittee and TIAA-CREF has been so worthwhile that the Subcommittee feels a continuing activity within AAUP would be desirable. As the present ad hoc Sub- committee closes out its activity, its last recommendation is that a standing subcommittee of Committee Z be con- stituted to continue its interaction with TIAA-CREF. However, the charge to the new subcommittee should be expanded to cover a concern with state and private retire- ment programs, and indeed to fringe benefit programs generally. We note that this recommendation is in accord with Committee Z's independent perception that there is a need for additional study of fringe benefits.

Robert Summers (Economics) University of Pennsylvania, Chairman

Anthony Y. C. Koo (Economics) Michigan State University

Gail Pierson (Economics) Harvard University

Giulio Pontecorvo (Economics) Columbia University

William B. Woolf (Mathematics) Washington Office Staff

An Academic Question

How many deans can tread Upon a department head?

Richard Kelly University of Tennessee

sijmmfr i<m 265

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:48:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions