REFORM

STRUCTURAL

TOWARD

MAKINGSTRIDESDirectorate for Education and Human Resources ProgramsAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Inside this issue:

African American and

Hispanic Women in Science

and Engineering, pg. 6

An Interview with Dr. Raymond Johnson, pg. 9

A Profile of an AGEP

Institution: The Colorado

PEAKS Alliance, pg. 11

R E S E A R C H

N E W S O N

A L L I A N C E S F O R

G R A D U A T E

E D U C A T I O N

A N D T H E

P R O F E S S O R I A T E

( A G E P )

V O L U M E 3

N U M B E R 3

J u l y 2 0 0 1

Continued on page 2

Careers of Minority Women Scientists from the University of California, Berkeley1

By Anne J. MacLachlan, Specialist, Center for Studies in Higher Education,University of California, Berkeley

The recent report on the situation ofwomen scientists at the Massachu-settsInstitute of Technology (MIT) has

brought the working conditions and treat-ment of women scientists into the conscious-ness of many in the academic community. Inall of the publicity about MIT and local cam-pus conversations about women scientists,however, women scientists of color and theirabsence in major research departments havenot been discussed. Among the 14 tenuredwomen on the faculty at MIT, there are nowomen of color. A recent survey of the top 50research departments in Chemistry by DonnaNelson at the University of Oklahoma con-firmed that there were very few men orwomen of color in any of these 50 depart-ments.2 Yet for the past two decades thesesame research universities have steadily beenawarding Ph.D.s in science and engineeringto persons of color, the majority of whomhave been men. Still, more than 4,877 womenof color have earned Ph.D.s in science andengineering. (See Table 1) So where are they?

If the field of vision is altered from the cur-rent faculty distributed among institutions tothe Ph.D.s awarded from one institution, it ispossible to gain some insight into whereminority Ph.D.s may have gone. The follow-

ing discussion is based on preliminary resultsfrom A Longitudinal Study of Minority Ph.D.sfrom 1980 to 1990: Progress and Outcomes inScience and Engineering during GraduateSchool and Professional Life, in which careersof University of California (UC) Ph.D.s aretracked. One of these, UC Berkeley, has beenamong the leading institutions to graduateminority Ph.D.s in the last twenty years.Many of its science and engineering depart-ments enjoy the highest academic rankings inthe country. It is assumed that Ph.D.s earnedfrom such departments prepare the holder fora distinguished life in science. The questionimmediately arises in this context: If there aredistinguished minority graduates of thisinstitution why are they not filling facultypositions at equally prestigious universities?

One simple answer is that they are there, butinvisible, as there are so few minority degreeholders. In the years between 1980 and 1990Berkeley graduated 52 African AmericanPh.D.s from all science and engineeringdepartments. Fifteen of those were women.In the same period it graduated 24 Chicanos,five of whom were women, and nine NativeAmericans, three of whom were women. Inall these years then, only 23 Ph.D.s wereawarded to women from these traditionallyunderrepresented American groups, although

for the purposes of the broad studymembers of all ethnic groups areincluded. (See Table 2)

Excepting Native Americans, wherewe only have found five of the nine, wehave been successful in locating 78percent of the African AmericanPh.D.s from Berkeley and 88.5 per-cent of the Chicanos. Two AfricanAmerican men actually proved to beAfrican while three African Americanmen and one Chicano have declinedto be interviewed. Even had we foundevery one of the 85 traditionallyunderrepresented Ph.D. holders, thenumber is a drop in the bucket com-pared with the total number of fulltime faculty in the natural sciences andengineering (125,361) reported for1992.3

Notwithstanding their relative invisi-bility at research universities, almostall of those interviewed so far in thisstudy are living distinguished lives inscience. Their occupational choicesand locations are determined by manyfactors in the pursuit of objectivesrelated to the opportunities to do sci-ence rather than acquiring prestige.They are using their training andbuilding substantial careers inside andoutside academe.

During the time that the respondentswere in training, as well as today, fac-ulty tend to assume they are trainingtheir students to develop careers muchlike their own. This is a faulty assump-tion as students of every ethnicity havechosen a broad range of careers andwere often obliged to, given the natureof the academic job market during the1980s and early 1990s, take jobs out-side of the academy.4 Still, the acuteshortage of minority faculty at leadingresearch universities raises many ques-tions about the overall attractiveness ofsuch careers, as well as less thanwholehearted efforts to recruitminorities to them.5

So where are the 56 predominantlyminority Ph.D.s interviewed so far inthis study now? (See Table 3.) Thirty-three (59 percent) are employed atacademic institutions, either as associ-ate or full professors, or as a seniorresearcher or research manager. Oneearned a M.D. Nine work directly foreither government labs or agencies,one for a school district. Three haveacquired law degrees and work onpatents and technology issues.Thirteen work in the private sector,mostly as researchers. Almost all are atmid-career or senior ranks in whatev-er environment they are working. Inaddition to the five working atHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities (HBCUs), three more areworking at other minority-servinginstitutions, three at California Stateuniversities.

With the exception of the one community college, the remaininginstitutions include: UCLA, Geor-giaInstitute of Technology, PennsylvaniaState University, UC Berkeley, RiceUniversity, Case Western University,University of Washington, Universityof Wisconsin, University ofMinnesota, Johns Hopkins University,MIT, UC San Diego, StanfordUniversity and Gonzaga University.While there are 15 Asian Americansin this group, along with the remain-ing interviewed population of AfricanAmericans, Chicanos, one FilipinoAmerican and two whites, all ethnicities were distributed among therange of prestigious institutions andorganizations.

Turning to just the women in thestudy, nine African Americans, fiveAsian Americans, three Chicanas, oneFilipina and one white were inter-viewed. Their employment includes 6associate or full professorships at theUniversity of Minnesota, NorthCarolina A&T University, SpelmanCollege, Cali-fornia State University

LET US KNOWWHAT YOU THINKPlease continue to send us yourcomments, feedback and in-quiries. The goal of thisnewsletter is, after all, to servethe needs of its readers. If youare interested in submitting aresearch article, please contactJolene Jesse at jjesse@aaas.org.For further information aboutour work, visit http:// ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/.

Making Strides is a quarterly ( January,April, July, and October) researchnewsletter published by the AmericanAssociation for the Advance-ment ofScience, Directorate for Education andHuman Resources Programs. Its pur-pose is to share information aboutminority graduate education in thefields of science, mathematics, andengineering. It is available in print andelectronic format. Inquiries, informa-tion related to AGEP, and all corre-spondence should be sent to the editor.

Managing Editor: Yolanda S. GeorgeEditor: Jolene JesseArt Director: Ann M. Williams

1200 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20005202-326-6631e-mail: mge@aaas.orghttp://ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/© 2001 AAAS

This newsletter was made possible by a grantfrom the National Science Foundation. Theopinions expressed in this newsletter are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily representthe views of the AAAS Board of Directors,the Council of AAAS, the staff or the mem-bership of the association, nor the NationalScience Foundation.

2

Continued on page 4

Year US All Black Asian/ Hisp. Native Mex Am. Total Min. WhiteWomen Pac. Isl. Am.

1988 2,066 33 72 87 6 5 203 1,863

1989 2,316 38 93 108 9 8 256 2,060

1990 2,375 36 85 119 2 15 257 2,118

1991 2,453 48 134 108 9 14 313 2,140

1992 2,549 36 147 126 11 16 336 2,213

1993 2,699 56 174 150 5 14 399 2,300

1994 2,812 77 156 148 9 20 410 2,402

1995 2,906 79 224 130 8 20 461 2,445

1996 2,958 74 240 150 18 20 502 2,459

1997 3,015 76 244 172 8 31 531 2,484

1998 3,166 111 233 199 16 33 592 2,574

1999 3,132 111 246 214 18 28 617 2,515

Total 32,450 775 2,048 1,711 119 224 4,877 27,573

Table 1: U.S. Citizen Women Ph.D.’s in Science and Engineering, 1988-1999

Source: Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards 1999, NSF 2001

Ethnicity Total Men % Women %

Asian 347 282 81.30% 65 18.70%

Black 54 39 72.20% 15 27.80%

Chicano 24 19 79.20% 5 20.80%

Filipino 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00%

Nat. American 9 6 66.70% 3 33.30%

Other Hispanics 57 43 75.40% 14 24.60%

Others 142 125 88.00% 17 12.00%

White 2464 1909 77.50% 555 22.50%

Foreign 1036 941 90.80% 95 9.20%

Total: 4138 3367 81.40% 771 18.60%

Source: UC Berkeley Graduate Division Database

Table 2: UC Berkeley Science and Engineering Ph.Ds 1980-1990By Gender and Ethnicity

3

Hayward, and Sonoma and GonzagaUniver-sities. Research positions atacademic institutions include UCOffice of the President, UC SanDiego, and Stanford University. Onewoman is now a lawyer, four work forthe federal government at Sandia andLawrence Berkeley National Labora-tories, the Department of Energy andthe Center for Disease Control. Oneworks as the science librarian in a tech-nical high school, while three currentlywork for major corporations as seniorresearchers. A fourth resigned fromsuch a position to have her children.

Women chose their career paths formany different reasons with differentdegrees of purposefulness. For severalwomen there was a conscious desire to

work at institutions which wouldenable them to serve their communi-ties. In some of these cases that alsomeant returning to the area where theirfamilies lived. Others chose jobs or asuccession of positions to accommo-date spouses. Several wished to remainin the Bay Area. Given the range ofparameters behind the desire to con-tinue to do serious science, it is strikinghow almost all of these women wereable to find desirable positions.Although one study participant main-tains she was “lucky” as jobs “fell out ofthe sky,” the pattern of employmentshows how training and talent pay off.Another characteristic, which shouldnot be under-rated, is the degree ofdetermination and commitment tosucceed. As one woman remarked, an

important factor to her success, “myperseverance and ability to handle suf-fering.”

In the group of 19 women discussedhere, only four received their degreesbefore 1985, the rest finished theirdegrees in the late 1980s. Fourteen ofthe 19 had one or more postdoctoralpositions. Although one postdoctoralposition was “a loser experience,” andanother “unpleasant,” on the wholethese first postdoctoral appointmentswere very important to developingskills essential for the eventual career.Comments range from “I learnedeverything I know there,” “learned newtechniques, a different way of lookingat problems,” “developed independentresearch area,” to “realized I was inter-

Table 3: Current Employment of 56 UC Berkeley Science and Engineering Ph.Ds.

Earned Between 1980-1990

4

Continued on page 5

Source: A. MacLachlan June 2001

ested in alternatives to doing researchscience in academia,” while another“missed teaching, I learned I didn’tenjoy full time research.”

Only two women started their currentjob directly out of graduate school.One went to a national laboratorywhere she does “interesting stuff attimes, but loses an incredible amountof time in bureaucracy.” One wentdirectly to a tenure track job at aCalifornia State university. Most of theother women reached their currentpositions within two or three jobchanges including postdoctoral posi-tions. Only two women required sevenor more job changes to get to their pre-sent position. Most report a high satis-faction rating in their current positionswith a score of one or two on a five-point scale, with one the highest. Asurprising number of women managedto find satisfying work while beingconstrained geographically, with anastounding total of nine succeeding instaying in the Bay Area, although notwithout some major effort.

One respondent’s postdoctoral experi-ence was so negative she was turned offby academic politics and earned a lawdegree. Another trained as a librarian.Few were completely free to followtheir fancy, as motherhood, elderlyparents, and other family responsibili-ties required creative solutions to sci-entific employment. For some, howev-er, there was no conflict, as job andother responsibilities could beresolved.In comparing the percentages of menand women who hold academic jobscurrently, 31.6 percent of women and56.8 percent of men hold such posi-tions. Not only are there fewer women,but fewer proportionately in academicjobs. One reason for this is that womenhave left academic positions, as theacademic experience often led them to

seek another kind of scientific work.Two had temporary teaching jobs astheir first position. Both were jobs ofconvenience. Neither promoted adesire to stay in academic teaching.The attorney taught at a communitycollege and an extension program formany years. Another could not sustainthe uncertainties of her teaching posi-tion because her husband died and sheneeded to have a permanent regularposition to support her children. Yetanother now employed in industry, hadan academic postdoctoral position aswell as a subsequent teaching positionand ended up being put off academicwork forever. Still another, who taughtbriefly, learned she preferred being in alab. If all these women had stayed inthe academy, then the percentagewould have been higher than that ofthe men in the study: 63 percent.

Clearly some of the choices which ledto the positions now currently held bythese women were idiosyncratic, butthe decision to leave for several waspreceded by unpleasant treatment orconflict. Although there are generallyhigh levels of satisfaction articulatedabout current employment, there aretraces of regret. Two of the women notin the academy always wanted to teachat a HBCU. Those who do teach aregenerally very satisfied, but two raisedissues of inadequate opportunities topursue research. One had a very diffi-cult promotion to professor in a situa-tion in which “the dean almost impliedbias.” Another is unhappy with thenew chair. Even if one is doing excel-lent science and working extensively topromote students’ participation in sci-ence, the quality of life in the academycan fluctuate for many other reasons.Does science discriminate againstwomen?6 Certainly several women inthis study have had difficulties in sus-taining research careers, or when inthem have had to bounce against bar-

riers to promotion in the organizationeven, as in one case, when she was win-ning national and company prizes forinnovative science. Nineteen womenare a small sample. Yet these 19 mani-fest such a deep commitment to theirwork, and ingenuity and determina-tion to make their work successful, thatthe pattern of success is dominant.Obstacles—sexist, racist or other—have been overcome one way or another.

5

1I would like to thank the SpencerFoundation and the UC IndustryUniversity Cooperative Research Programfor their generous support of this work.Thanks to Mia Ong and Kara Sammet fortheir work on this project.

2Jennifer Jacobson, “Minority Groups arePoorly Represented on Chemistry Faculties,Study Finds.” Chronicle of HigherEducation, May 21, 2001.

3Almanac of the Chronicle of HigherEducation, September 2000.

4Anne J. MacLachlan, Berkeley PlacementProject: Placement of All Berkeley Ph.D.sbetween 1980 and 1989. U.C.Berkeley,1992.

5Daryl G. Smith, Caroline S. Turner,Trevor Chandler, Charles Henry,Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategiesfor Hiring Diverse Faculty. Report to theSpencer Foundation, April 30, 2001.

6Donna K. Ginther, Does ScienceDiscriminate against Women? Evidencefrom Academia, 1973-97. Working PaperSeries, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta,February 2001.

Endnotes

African American and Hispanic Women inScience and EngineeringBy Cheryl B. Leggon, Ph.D., Director of Women’s Studies, Wake Forest University

Introduction

The underrepresentation ofwomen in general, and AfricanAmerican and Hispanic

women in particular, is a criticallyimportant issue for the United States(U.S.)—especially as people of colorare rapidly becoming the numericalmajority of the population. Women ofHispanic origin (of any race) are one ofthe fastest growing population groupsin the U.S. Who does science largelydetermines who will do science insofaras scientists act as gatekeepers whodetermine who is qualified to be a sci-entist. Scientists are humans whobring their socio-cultural and histori-cal backgrounds to the practice of sci-ence. This background affects what isstudied, how it is studied, and howresults are to be used (Leggon, 1995).

An important prerequisite for dis-cussing African Americans andHispanics in science and engineering(S&E) is a clear specification of terms.The term “African American” is usedto refer to Americans born in theUnited States who are the biological,socio-legal descendants of people withorigins in Africa. Particularly withinthe context of data on the S&E work-force, it is vital to distinguish betweenBlacks born in the U.S., and non-U.S.-born Blacks. Data that combine U.S.-born-and-raised Blacks with Blacksborn and raised outside of the U.S. areproblematic because they greatlyunderestimate the extent of AfricanAmerican participation in S&E.Moreover there are significant socialand cultural differences betweenBlacks born in the U.S. and those bornand raised elsewhere. One of the mostnoteworthy differences is that African

Americans were educated in a race-and class-based school system (Weber2001).

Just as the term “Black” obscuresimportant intergroup differences, theterm “Hispanic” is problematic for thesame reason. “Hispanic” is an umbrellaterm encompassing Puerto Ricans,Mexican Americans, Cubans, and peo-ple with origins in Central and SouthAmerica. It obscures critical socio-eco-nomic, cultural and historical differ-ences among groups. For example,Mexican Americans are different fromPuerto Ricans, and Puerto Ricans who grew up on the island are different from those who grew up onthe mainland. Puerto Ricans raised onthe mainland (sometimes called “New Yoricans”) share similarities with African Americans. MexicanAmericans (sometimes called “Chica-nos”) are similar to Native Americans.

Data on the S&E workforce should bedisaggregated not only by race/ethnic-ity but also by gender. Collecting databy either race/ethnicity or gendermasks critical intra-group differences.This is especially problematic forwomen of color, such as AfricanAmericans and Hispanics. Most stud-ies do not focus on minority women inscience and engineering; those that dorarely focus on the structural condi-tions surrounding Ph.D. training(MacLachlan, 2001). Often thesewomen tend to be in a “double bind” inat least two ways. First, when they arenot included in either research onwomen or research on AfricanAmericans and Hispanics; second,when they are included, but relegatedto footnotes or parenthetical discus-

sion. Although they share some issueswith white women and men of color,women of color have issues and con-cerns that differ from those of bothgroups. It is my contention that issuesstemming from both race/ethnicityand gender are not merely additive,but synergistic. This article discussesthe underrepresentation of AfricanAmerican and Hispanic women notonly in the S&E education pipeline,but also in the S&E workplace.

S&E Education PipelineAfrican American women andHispanic women comprise 75 percentof the students at minority-servinginstitutions (MSI). For these groupsMSIs include Historically BlackColleges and Universities (HBCUs),predominantly Hispanic-serving insti-tutions (HSIs), and the University ofPuerto Rico (UPR) system. The UPRsystem consists of three graduate cam-puses and eight four-year colleges.UPR is the baccalaureate-source insti-tution for approximately 20 percent ofall science, mathematics, engineeringand technology (SMET) doctoraldegrees earned by Hispanics in theU.S. (Weiner, 2000). Similarly,HBCUs are major producers ofAfrican American students who laterearn doctorates in the biological andphysical sciences (Leggon andPearson, 1997).

At the undergraduate level in MSIs,Hispanic and African Americanwomen are well represented in mathe-matics, physics, and computer science.At the graduate level, although bothHispanic and African American

6

continued on next page 7

7

women out-earn their male counter-parts in terms of the total number ofPh.D.s in all fields, these womeneither do not enter graduate programsin mathematics or, if they enter theseprograms, they are not retainedthrough to the Ph.D. Hispanic andAfrican American women do not per-sist in science because they are notencouraged to do so (NCES, 2000).Research on women in science indi-cates that not encouraging women topersist produces the same result asactively discouraging them (Hall andSandler, 1982; Sonnert and Holton,1995).

Table 1 shows the percentages ofwomen among Blacksi and Hispanicsin S&E by degree level from 1995-1997.

For both Blacks and Hispanics, thereis an inverse correlation betweendegree level and the percentage of therace/ethnic group that is female. This

correlation holds for Blacks in everyfield, and for Hispanics in every fieldexcept engineering and mathematics.Women comprise at least half ofBlacks in S&E with: bachelors degreesin physics, mathematics, biological sci-ence, agricultural science, psychology,social science; masters degrees inmathematics, biological science, psy-chology, and social science; and doc-torates in biological science and socialscience. Women comprise at least halfof Hispanics in S&E: in biological sci-ence, psychology, and social science atthe bachelors level; agricultural sci-ences and psychology at the masterslevel; and in no S&E field at the doc-toral level.

The S&E workforce in theU.S.iiFor the overall U.S. labor force, theU.S. Department of Labor projectsthat after Hispanic women and men,Black women will comprise the largest

share of non-white labor force entrantsbetween 1994 and 2005 (U.S. Dept. ofLabor, 1997b). Although they have alower participation rate in the U.S.labor force than both Black and whitewomen, Hispanic women are one ofthe fastest growing groups of workingwomen in the U.S.

Among those women who graduatedin 1990 or later, women comprise 30percent of the S&E labor force. In1997, women comprised 23 percent ofthe U.S. S&E labor force, and womenof color accounted for 4.6 percent ofall scientists and engineers in the laborforce. Within each racial/ethnic group,women were a smaller percentage ofthe S&E labor force than were men.Women comprised higher percentagesthan men in computer science, biolog-ical science and social science, butlower percentages in engineering. In1997, 20 percent of all women in theS&E labor force were women of color.

continued on page 8

Table 1: Percentage Women of Blacks and Hispanics in S&E by degree level 1995-1997

Field Black Hispanic

BS MS Ph.D. BS MS Ph.D.

Engineering 34.3 33.4 23.7 22.5 23.0 23.7

Physics 58.0 48.6 20.0 44.2 38.1 22.9

Mathematics 52.4 50.1 28.6 41.5 29.6 33.3

Computer 48.9 44.8 25.0 39.9 28.4 11.8

Science

Biological 68.4 71.6 54.0 57.9 48.6 43.2

Science

Agricultural 54.8 41.7 24.0 47.1 51.4 26.9

Science

Natural Sci.& 60.8 44.6 34.2 39.7 31.0 31.0

S&E

Psychology 79.2 77.0 26.5 75.7 73.0 63.3

Social Science 60.0 57.8 51.8 54.4 45.0 39.2

Total S&E 60.1 57.6 46.9 52.3 43.8 40.6

Non S&E 66.3 70.1 64.5 62.7 63.7 56.8

All Fields 64.5 68.7 57.2 59.2 60.1 47.8

Source: NSF 2000

8

Among this group, Black andHispanic women comprise one percenteach (Asian women comprised twopercent, and Native American womenapproximately one-tenth of one per-cent). Hispanics have the most propor-tional distribution among those inS&E occupations. White women sci-entists and engineers had a lowerunemployment rate in 1997 than didnonwhite women, 2 percent and 2.8percent, respectively. Moreover, ahigher percentage of Hispanic women(17 percent) than of Black women(9 percent) worked part time in 1997.

There are three major employmentsectors for S&E degree holders: busi-ness or industry; national, state andlocal government; and academe. In1997, among both sexes employed inthe S&E workforce, 55 percent ofHispanics and 53 percent of Blacksworked in for-profit business or indus-try. Among all racial/ethnic groupsemployed in business or industry,women were less likely than men toreport research and development as aprimary or secondary activity, andmore likely than men to report com-puter applications as a primary or sec-ondary work activity. Moreover, Blackand Hispanic scientists and engineersare more likely than any other groupsto be employed in government at alllevels (federal, state, local)—includingthe military. Among all employed inthe S&E workforce, women are morelikely than men to be employed ineducational institutions, and less likelyto work in business or industry.Among those employed in educationalinstitutions, females are more likelythan males to work in 2-year colleges.

Within 4-year colleges and universi-ties, there is an inverse correlationbetween gender and rank: the higherthe rank, the fewer the women. Blackand Hispanic females with S&Edegrees are less likely than both whitewomen and men of any racial/ethnicgroup to be full professors. Moreover,Black and Hispanic females are lesslikely than men of any racial/ethnicgroup and white women to be tenured.

In 1997, 29 percent of both Black andHispanic women held tenure. Forwhite women and white men, thetenure percentages were 38 percentand 63 percent, respectively.

Discussion/Summary/ConclusionsBlack and Hispanic women with S&Edegrees employed in academe are crit-ical to the future of S&E. They have adirect impact on who will do science,insofar as they teach, advise and men-tor the next generations of scientistsand engineers. The absence of Blackand Hispanic female S&E faculty inundergraduate and graduate class-rooms and laboratories sends the mes-sage not only to Black and Hispanicstudents but also to all students thatBlack and Hispanic women cannot bescientists. However, the presence ofBlack and Hispanic females in class-rooms and laboratories is necessary butnot sufficient to counter this message.If Black and Hispanic women are pre-sent but treated poorly by their col-leagues and/or students, Black andHispanic female students will choose

not to enter academic science in par-ticular, or any S&E field in general.iii

Therefore, the focus should be onimproving the professional environ-ment for Black and Hispanic femalefaculty as well as for their studentcounterparts.

How can this be done?Regardless of employment sector,management—e.g., department chairs,academic deans, managers, and divi-sion directors—can and should bemade accountable for the extent towhich women of color (also men ofcolor and white women) are mentoredand their careers developed. In acad-eme at the institutional level, thisshould be a major factor in awardingresearch funds and grants. In otherwords, the focus should be on themacro-level of institutions, not on themicro-level of individuals. Thingscan—and must—be done to improveboth the representation and profes-sional experiences of under-participat-ing groups in the S&E workforce. Notbeing part of the solution perpetuatesthe problem.

ENDNOTESi The term “Black” is now used because that is the term used by the source of these data, the National ScienceFoundation.ii The National Science Foundation (NSF 00-327) defines scientists and engineers in terms of occupation, notdegree field.iii Nelson (2001) makes these points about women in chemistry.

BIBLIOGRAPHYHall, R.M., and Bernice Sandler. (1982). “The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?” Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges.

Leggon, Cheryl B. (1995). “The Impact of Science and Technology on African Americans.” Humboldt Journal ofSocial Relations, Volume 21:2.

Leggon, Cheryl B. and Willie Pearson, Jr. (1997). “The Baccalaureate Origins of African American FemaleScientists,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3(4):213-224.

Malcom, Shirley (2000) “Minority Ph.D. Production in SME Fields: Distributing the Work?” Making Strides,volume 2, number 3, July.

MacLachlan, Anne J. (2001) “The Lives and Careers of Minority Women Scientists.” Center for Studies in HigherEducation, http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/cshe/projects/minority/invesandcareers.htm.

National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science andEngineering Education.

National Science Foundation (2000). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.NSF 00-327.

Nelson, Donna J. (2000) “Constancy in Chemistry: Effects on females and minorities. AWIS Magazine.http://www.awis.org/magazine.html.

Sonnert, Gerhard and Gerald Holton (1995). Who Succeeds in Science: The Gender Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau:

1997a Facts on Working Women, “Women of Hispanic Origin in the Labor Force,” No. 97, February .1997b Facts on Working Women, “Women of African American Origin in the Labor Force,” No. 97, March.

Weber, Lyn (2001) Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality: A Conceptual Framework. McGraw-Hill.

Weiner, Brad (2000) “A Profile of AGEP Institution: University of Puerto Rico,” Making Strides,volume 2, number 3, July.

9

An Interview withDr.Raymond Johnson

MS: Tell me about your backgroundand the reasons you chose math.

Johnson: I was a student in high schoolwhen the Soviet Union launchedSputnik. This event triggered a renewedinterest in science and math, and myhigh school offered special math enrich-ment classes. I took those classes andfound that I liked it.

MS: What was it about math specif-ically that you liked?

Johnson: It wasn’t really math but theclasses that I enjoyed. The supplementalclasses just happened to be in math.What I liked about them is that theywent beyond the basic material in thetextbook. I learned more about whatmath was going to be like as a profes-sion.

Then when I went to the University ofTexas and had to choose a major, I found I liked math better than anything else.My professors then suggested I go on tograduate school.

I applied to Rice University. RiceUniversity was, at the time, due to a stip-ulation in William Marsh Rice’s will, forthe white citizens of Texas only. This wasbeing contested, however, and I wasaccepted. Some alumni of the universitythen contested integration, and so it tooka year before I was formally admitted tothe school.

MS: Was it difficult for you being oneof the first African Americans atRice?

Johnson: Not really. It was an unusualtime—1963, and the Civil RightsRevolution was in full swing. All my

fellow graduate students were very sup-portive, and I made friends that I havekept to this day. Most everyone I metthere felt that my admission and theintegration of the campus were theappropriate things to do.

MS: Did any of your own experi-ences as a graduate or undergrad-uate student inform your later activ-ities on behalf of graduate students?

Johnson: I was very much alone in grad-uate school. I didn’t learn anything aboutbuilding a community or anything likethat. But I was welcomed into the groupof other math graduate students at Rice.We were a small group starting outtogether and were put under heavy pres-sure. So we all stuck together because wewere going through the same thing. Iwas the only Black graduate student atRice at the time, and there was only oneother Black undergraduate student,whom I never met.

MS: Where did you go after that?

Johnson: My advisor at Rice took a jobat the University of Chicago before I wasfinished with my doctorate. I went toChicago with him, but finished mydegree at Rice. After that I came to theUniversity of Maryland.

MS: What were your own experi-ences in the academic job market?

Johnson: I graduated at a time when itwas much simpler. My advisor asked mewhere I wanted to go. I said East and hemade some phone calls. He called theUniversity of Maryland and I was toldthat I got the job. There were lots morejobs then than now.

MS: You made a conscious effort todiversify the math program atUMCP. Those efforts have led to athird of your current graduate stu-dents being female and 15 percentcoming from underrepresentedgroups.

What steps did UMCP’s mathdepartment institute to reach thislevel of success?

Johnson: Our efforts started when I was Associate Chair with directresponsibility for the graduate program.I began to try to recruit minority stu-dents by visiting Historically BlackColleges and Univer-sities (HBCUs). Iwas successful in getting some studentsto come.

At some point we began to have a num-ber of Black students, but they weren’treally talking to each other. There was afeeling that you were not supposed tocluster together. I wasn’t directlyinvolved with all the African Americanstudents either. Our program coordina-tor came to me to see if we could getsome money to get the Black studentstogether. I began to meet with them as agroup. I wanted them to know that it isall right to mingle with everyone—eveneach other. Once we began to meet as agroup, we made much more progress inrecruiting more African American stu-dents to the program. Students saw thatthere was a place to anchor onto, thatthere were significant avenues for inter-action, and this made them more willingto select us.

MS: Why was there this feelingamong the African American stu-

Each issue of Making Strides features a short interview with a science, mathematics orengineering (SME) professor who has been instrumental in mentoring and encourag-ing students through the pipeline, as well as demonstrating leadership and outstandingaccomplishments in the world of SME.

This issue profiles Dr. Raymond Johnson, Professor of Mathematics at the Universityof Maryland, College Park. As Chair of the Mathematics Department, Dr. Johnson wasinstrumental in diversifying the graduate student body. He has won UMCP’sDistinguished Minority Faculty Award and was the co-organizer of the firstConference for African American Researchers in the Mathematical Sciences andMinorities and Applied Mathematics: Connections to Industry and Laboratories.

Continued on next page

9

10

dents that you weren’t supposed tocluster together?

Johnson: I think that its part of thesocial conditioning. People look suspi-ciously at groups of African Americans.The students felt that. They also felt theyshould interact with everyone. They areright about that, but that doesn’t meanthat they can’t interact with each other aswell. They just didn’t realize that theyhad so much in common. Their interac-tion with each other was productivebecause they were able to look at anoth-er dimension of what was going on ingraduate school by talking with eachother. They did not know each other atall is what we discovered.

MS: Once you did begin to meet asa group, what specific activities didyou do that seemed to attract morestudents?

Johnson: I specifically invited otherBlack professionals with Ph.D.s to meetwith them. Meetings were about once amonth and were definitely thematic. Forexample, I brought in a professor of matheducation, Dr. Genevieve Knight fromCoppin State University, to talk abouther work and how her education at theUniversity of Maryland prepared her todo her job. Meetings were based on aprofessional theme that allowed the students to contemplate their future professions.

MS: Have you found that having acritical mass of minority studentshas made a difference, and is it sus-tainable over the long run?

Johnson: I found that it has made a dif-ference and is sustainable. Students seeothers like themselves and that makesthem want to come. There are so manyquestions that students ask when choos-ing a program. Is this the school for me?Do they have the academics that I need?But most African American studentsfind that simply asking the academicquestions isn’t enough. Once we had acritical mass and a community it hasbecome self-perpetuating. Critical massis the thing that did it.

MS: What constitutes a “criticalmass?” How many students?

Johnson: I don’t really know. More thanone. I think it depends on the size of the

school and would be different at differ-ent schools. There should be enough sothat the Black students feel comfortableand that they are not alone or will be sin-gled out. I knew we reached a criticalmass when the students became morecomfortable at the university.

MS: How did your efforts affect the overall climate in UMCP’s MathDepartment?

Johnson: That’s hard to say. I think ithelped but I can’t prove it. Some of thethings that we did for the AfricanAmerican students were incorporatedinto our orientation for all new graduatestudents. We found that for all graduatestudents there was a problem in makingconnections with each other. So ourgraduate office began assigning eachentering graduate student with a studentmentor. Some of the things we saw thatworked with the African American stu-dents were adapted to all students.

MS: What effect has the currentanti-affirmative action climate hadon your diversity efforts?

Johnson: It has had an impact in thatour university used to have scholarshipsreserved specifically for AfricanAmerican students to attract them toMaryland. These were lost in the wake ofthe Michael Williams scholarship ruling.Now individual departments have to usetheir own resources. We’ve been lucky inthat our department has stepped up tothe plate in terms of using its ownresources.

The university-level program, though, didoffer us a certain amount of flexibilitythat allowed us to bring in students thatmight not have looked so great on paper.There were times that at the departmen-tal level we might not have considered acandidate because their applications did-n’t seem strong. But then the universitywould rank them as a top candidate intheir recruitment efforts and we wouldbe able to accept them into the program.Then with some mentoring, we wereable to nurture them and allow them togrow in the program.

After these university-wide programswere eliminated, they were replaced bygrant programs to individual depart-ments to help in minority recruitmentefforts at the departmental level.

Recruiting is essentially a departmentalactivity. If a department didn’t use thesegrant opportunities then nothing cameof it. The math department made theeffort to use it and from there we wereable to continue to diversify. In the end itall comes down to departmental activity.

MS: I have read that you have beensomewhat disappointed in the post-doctoral job market experiences ofsome of your students. Where haveyour graduates ended up in gener-al? Have you found that most gointo the professoriate?

Johnson: I have been somewhat disap-pointed in the academic jobs that ourAfrican American students haveattained. Many have found positions atHBCUs such as Howard University,Morgan State University, and NorthCarolina A&T. But current legendwould have them receiving job offersfrom Rutgers, the University of Virginia,or other Research I universities. This hashappened sporadically with some of ourwhite students. But our Black studentshave not even been contacted or gotteninterviews there.

Our students who have gone into indus-try, though, have done extremely well,landing positions at the Departments ofEnergy and Defense and in top corpora-tions. Those are the kinds of places andthe level at which I would like to see thepeople who choose academia be in aswell. Lately we have been encouragingstudents to consider non-academic jobs more.

MS: What is the best way to recruitmore women and minorities intoSME disciplines?

Johnson: When I made the decision toconsciously go out and recruit studentsfrom underrepresented groups, I first satdown and identified the schools that hadsent us students in the past who had beensuccessful. I then focused my recruitmentefforts there. I visited those schools in aneffort to make contact with them. Everyschool has a different recruiting area, andthat is where efforts should begin.

Once you’ve recruited the students, youneed to have institutional procedures inplace to evaluate them. Again, this waswhere campus wide fellowship commit-

Continued from page 9

Continued on page 12

11

A Profile of an AGEP Institution: TheColorado PEAKS Alliance

By Barbara E. Kraus and Christine Macdonald, The Graduate School, University of Colorado at Boulder

When asked why he chose acareer path in academiainstead of industry, Charles

Glass replies: “There are very fewAfrican American environmental engi-neers in academia. I thought my presencecould make a difference.” Glass, whoearned his Ph.D. in civil engineering atthe University of Colorado at Boulder in1997, is currently an assistant professorof civil engineering at HowardUniversity. He is pleased that theUniversity of Colorado’s AGEP awardwill help increase the successes that CU’sminority students in science, math andengineering have had at the University.

The National Science Foundation fund-ed AGEP grant provides funding for thenew Colorado PEAKS Alliance, a part-nership between CU-Boulder andColorado State University, to develop amodel of minority graduate education inwhich the graduate schools coordinaterecruiting pipelines and support pro-grams. The PEAKS Alliance initiativesare designed to triple the number ofunderrepresented minorities graduatingwith Ph.D.s and entering the professori-ate in the fields of science, math and

engineering. CU-Boulder, ranked 16th

in the nation in awarding doctoraldegrees to minority students in SMEfields, is the lead institution of theColorado PEAKS Alliance.

One of the reasons CU-Boulder andCSU competed successfully for theAGEP grant is because the infrastruc-ture to recruit and retain minority stu-dents in science, math and engineeringwas nearly in place at both institutions.CU-Boulder’s Sum-mer MulticulturalAccess to Research Training (SMART)program brings talented minority under-graduates to campus to work with facul-ty mentors on research projects and to

introduce them to graduate education.Colorado State University is the leadinstitution for the Colorado Alliance forMinority Participation (LS CO-AMP),which has built a strong pipeline ofminority undergraduates at eight bac-calaureate-degree granting institutions,five community colleges and four NativeAmerican tribal partners in Coloradoand the Four Corners region.

The SMART program, begun in 1989,has established a successful infrastructurethat supports diversity at CU-Boulder.SMART provides undergraduates theopportunity to prepare for graduateschool, and to consider CU-Boulder fortheir graduate education. SMART isalso extremely effective in generatinghigh levels of faculty involvement incampus diversity efforts. The program isso rewarding for faculty, despite theadditional commitment of time andenergy, that the number of faculty whovolunteer to be mentors each year farexceeds the number of students the pro-gram can financially support. ManySMART faculty mentors also learnabout and take part in other GraduateSchool diversity programs—such as aprogram that supports faculty travel tominority-serving institutions to recruitgraduate students.

SMART also reaches out to current CU-Boulder graduate students. Between 5and 10 minority graduate studentsreceive a small stipend to facilitate therapid integration of the SMART internsinto CU-Boulder’s research environ-ment. These graduate students becomecommitted to SMART, and oftenremain in touch with the program aftergraduating. Eight graduate students whoworked for SMART are now in facultypositions across the United States andPuerto Rico. They are among the bestrecruiters for the program.

Charles Glass knows firsthand the bene-fits of CU-Boulder’s SMART program.After participating in SMART as anundergraduate in 1991, Glass returned toCU as a graduate student in order tocontinue to work with his faculty men-tor. Upon receiving his Ph.D. at CU-Boulder, Glass taught at the Universityof Nevada-Reno, and then landed hiscurrent position at Howard, where he iscontinuing the minority mentorshipcycle by sending his talented undergrad-uates to the SMART program. SMARTwas a key factor in inspiring Glass toattend graduate school. “CU is a reallysupportive place,” he says. “It wasn’t untilI participated in the SMART programthat I really learned to enjoy research andthinking. The professors involved in theSMART program were genuinely inter-ested in our future and that’s one reasonwhy I decided to go to CU for graduateschool.” Glass is now excited about theadditional support and professionalopportunities that the Colorado PEAKSAlliance will provide to minority gradu-ate students.

Colorado’s AGEP InitiativeAs part of the AGEP initiative toincrease the number of minority Ph.D.sentering the professoriate, CU-Boulderis offering 10 Chancel-lor’s TeachingFellowships annually for minority doc-toral students. These new teaching fel-lowships provide full support for first-year minority doctoral students to serveas teaching assistants within an SMEfield. CSU is also providing two newPEAKS graduate teaching fellowshipsthat provide full support plus tuition.These teaching fellowships encouragePEAKS students to become involved incampus teacher training programs, suchas the Graduate Teacher Program and

Continued on next page

the Preparing Future Faculty program, atthe beginning of their doctoral studiesand to consider the professoriate as a futurecareer.

The CU-Boulder and CSU GraduateSchools also offer PEAKS Fellow-shipsin addition to the teaching fellowships asan incentive to entering minority doctor-al students. These fellowships consist of a$2,500 diversity fellowship for studentsduring their first year of doctoral studyand a $3,500 research award to supporttheir research during the summer follow-ing their first year of study. SME depart-ments accepting students who receive theteaching and research fellowships mustguarantee an additional four years offunding for each student’s doctoral edu-cation.

CU-Boulder offered its first round ofChancellor’s Teaching Fellowships lastspring to minority students who entereddoctoral programs during the 2000-01academic year. Alexander Villacorta, adoctoral student in applied mathematicsand a former SMART intern, is a mem-ber of the first group of graduate studentsto benefit from the AGEP program.After working as a teaching assistant forIntroduction to Differential Equations,Villacorta says that he discovered that “Itruly loved teaching. Every week I lookedforward to those classes and the newtechniques I would try.” As for his futureplans, Villacorta says,” even though some

experience in industry is important in myfield [applied math], I’d like to end up inacademia.” Villacorta agrees that theSMART program “definitely” influencedhis decision to attend graduate school;before attending SMART, he says, “I hadthought of grad school, but not serious-ly.” Villacorta is now working in the resi-dence hall for this summer’s SMARTprogram. In fact, five of the first tenrecipients of the AGEP Chancellor’sTeaching Fellowships are working withSMART this summer.

“The SMART program helped to inspireme to give something back,” says CharlesGlass. “I believe in programs likeSMART—that’s why I continue to be arecruiter for them.” With the NSF-fund-ed AGEP grant, the University ofColorado at Boulder and Colorado StateUniversity are committed to creating asustainable graduate school infrastructurethat produces future generations of facul-ty that are representative of our increas-ingly diverse society.

tees might have had an advantage inthat they were better able to see poten-tial. It’s a calibration problem. Depart-ments need to work at assessing thequality of students based on informa-tion that the students have provided,but whose import may not always beimmediately apparent.

MS: What is the best way to retainmore women and minorities inSME disciplines?

Johnson: For us, the most importantissue is to get students to pass theirqualifying written exams. We foundthat success depended on students talk-ing to one another. Once this dialogwas opened up they could easily form

groups to study together. We found anincrease in study sessions for bothAfrican Americans and the more gen-eral student body. People chose studygroups as appropriate, based on sub-fields or affinity or whatever. That wasthe main benefit of our activities forretention. Students were able to reachout and form groups more easily.Research shows that reaching out doesnot take place until students feel com-fortable and know who they are. Thenthey are able to reach out and partici-pate in activities organized by othergroups.

MS: Did you do anything to helpother faculty assume mentoringroles?

Johnson: Yes and no. Actually, I didn’treally have to. Once a student passesthe written exam, they have to choose afaculty advisor, and that has alwaysbeen a strong mentoring position. But,if you don’t get to that point you don’tget a mentor. When more studentsbegan to work together to pass theexam, more African American studentswere able to get past that hurdle.Through that process, we exposed anumber of faculty members to highquality African American students andthat did have an impact on the faculty.From there things just took their natur-al course.

Thank you so much for yourinsights, Dr. Johnson!

Charles Glass, who was the keynote speaker for the annual CU-Boulder MulticulturalEngineering Program awards banquet in April, 2001.

Continued from page 10

12