On Wealth, Equality and Responsibility

By Donna P. Hall, MPH, MBA

It hasn't even been a century since American women won the right to vote, so we are still working toward full equality in many fields, including sports, employment, salaries and, yes, personal wealth. In fact, it's been only a few decades since the American woman was permitted a credit line of her own. As late as 1973, a married woman in Texas could not acquire a credit card without her husband's signature.

Despite the challenges women continue to face with regard to earning power (women still earn 25 percent less than men), it is women who control the household purse strings, decide most major purchases and hold the most consumer debt. And with education, experience and centuries of feminist prodding behind us, more women than ever before have control of significant assets.

The late 20th century saw a blizzard of new business start-ups, with women in 1990 starting companies at three times the rate as men. At the same time, the numbers of women entering college began to outpace male enrollments. As women assume greater roles in the business economy, their role in philanthropic enterprises has increased, as well.

Of the 3.3 million Americans with annual incomes greater than $550,000, women comprise 41.2 percent of the total, according to Learning to Give.

In the coming years, women's new found pull in the world of charitable and philanthropic giving promises to shape the mission of nonprofits in ways that male philanthropists never tried. As we celebrate Women's History Month, more women than ever see philanthropy as the means for making history today -- to leverage the work of today's ground-breaking women as they stand with the suffragists, abolitionists and liberationists of the past.

In a study by the Corporation for National and Community Service, women were found to be more likely to donate their time to nonprofit organizations than are men. That fact is similar to the findings by University of Pittsburgh's Lise Vesterlund that women appear to be more personally invested than their male counterparts in the work done by the organizations to which they give.

Today I am privileged to be part of a philanthropic landscape that includes a group of more than 160 wealthy women, all determined to make social and environmental change, who are leveraging our giving by pooling our resources, collectively making grants and gifts to nonprofits whose goals comport with ours. As members (some anonymous) of the Women Donors Network, my colleagues and I contributed, collectively and individually, more than $120 million last year in pursuit of a social agenda for America that is very different from the one most of us grew up with.

We're seeking out creative ideas to help make the U.S. a better place for all people. Women donors are supporting ways to reduce unintended pregnancy, promote healthy families, provide quality education and preserve our natural resources. We care about sustainable agriculture and food policy; we worry about the rise of regressive social and political forces and seek to bring women's voices to the fore in our national debates.

The women donors I know wrestle with difficult questions and look for new ways to create social change: What does the Middle East conundrum mean to a woman funder who is committed to peace? How can we help change the way disaster relief should work after what we learned about Hurricane Katrina?

For each of these questions, philanthropists, through the Women Donors Network, have funded initiatives designed to offer answers. As women philanthropists increasingly take their concerns and resources into the marketplace of ideas, they make their mark on the public debate.

Women who give are putting our money where our rhetoric is. We have an agenda. We have a vision of meaningful social change for America, and we're working to make it real.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hall is the President and CEO of the Women Donors Network based in Meno Park, California.

Women's History - Still Being Written

by Martha Burk

As we approach International Women's Day, advocates of women's rights have a lot to celebrate. Here and abroad, women are making strides on terrain both old and new.

This March, leaders of the nation's women's organizations concurred that the month dedicated to history made by women needs a name that reflects not just the landmarks of the past, but the ongoing achievements of women as we advance toward equality. This year, we celebrate the third month of the year not as simply "Women's History Month," but "Women Making History Month."

In the history books of tomorrow, 2007 will doubtless be designated a landmark year, beginning with Nancy Pelosi's election in January as first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Harvard University named Drew Gilpin Faust its first woman president in the school's 371-year history, and Frances E. Allen became the first woman to receive the highest award in computing in February. This country's very first public space dedicated to feminist art becomes a reality on March 23, 2007, when the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art opens in the Brooklyn Museum. The Center provides a permanent space for Judy Chicago's legendary work "The Dinner Party," honoring women throughout history.

Across the pond, the Wimbledon Championships -- the oldest Grand Slam event in tennis -- will finally join the United States Open and the Australian Open in granting equal prize money to female and male competitors. In France, women are looking forward to the likely election next month of Ségolène Royal as the nation's first female president next. If elected, she will join Michelle Bachelet of Chile, her nation's first female chief executive, elected last year.

Amid the progress, there are also setbacks. With the re-emergence of the Taliban, women in Afghanistan are back in the burqa, the head-to-ankle garment, and generally purged from public view. And women in Darfur, with fewer resources than men and primary responsibility for children, continue to bear the brunt of the ongoing genocide and rapes.

Here at home, the pay gap between women and men working full time (year-round) in this country remains a stubborn 24 cents on the dollar, and women are still the largest group of elderly poor. There's not much good news on the executive front either. A recent report from Catalyst, an independent research organization, says it will take another 47 years for women to reach parity with men as corporate officers in the Fortune 500. That's more than a full career span in anybody's book.

National women's groups in the U.S. aren't waiting for history to catch up with fairness. They're planning a national Women's Equality Summit March 26-27 in Washington D.C., to honor legislators who have done the most for women, and educate activists from around the country about areas where women are still left behind. Those activists will, in turn, lobby their members of Congress for faster results enacting measures that benefit women and their families. Summit participants will also hear from presidential candidates. It will be interesting to hear how many of them will address the pay gap, cuts in child health funds, the woeful lack of child care in this country, and why the U.S. hasn't ratified the international women's human rights treaty. And, oh yes -- the 900 pound gorilla -- ending the war. Polls show that women in both parties are far more anti-war than men, and we've known for years that nobody can be elected president without women's votes, even if they garner 100 percent of male ballots.

Speaking of gorillas, my favorite recent females-making- history story comes from the animal kingdom. Seems researchers in Senegal have established that chimps can and do fashion spears from sticks and use the tools to hunt small mammals. They say the landmark observation supports the notion that females, who do most of the crafting, are the main innovators and creative problem solvers in primate culture. Could be true in the human realm as well, but we won't know till women are equal to men politically, economically and socially. So let's cheer these small steps for womankind, and hope that future steps will be giant ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burk is Director of the Corporate Accountability Project for the National Council of Women's Organizations.

Women and the Politics of Morality
by Amy Caiazza


Some are calling this the "new year of the woman." We have already seen one woman, for the first time, occupy the Speaker's chair during a State of the Union address and another emerge as the frontrunner for her party's presidential nomination. Indeed, for women leaders in U.S. politics, things have been looking up in the last decade. We've seen an increase in the number of women governors and the second woman to serve as secretary of state.

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice have given us new inspiration to think about what the world might be if women were in charge. In large part, this debate has focused on what women's leadership might mean for policy: Would we have universal child care? Higher quality education and universal health care? Paid family leave? If women were really in charge -- that is, if women's leadership, lives, and concerns were fully included in politics from the local to the national level -- we could see even more earth-shattering change. We might see our country pursue a set of values that would shift the focus of political debate altogether. Women have the potential to push America to embrace values of mutuality, shared responsibility, and concern for the weakest and most disadvantaged.

America needs the kind of leadership that women can provide. We, as a nation, can look to myriad examples where we have fallen short: Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, increasing levels of economic inequality and hardship, a messy health insurance system and the war in Iraq. Women have a long, historical, lived experience that speaks to the new perspectives and values that they can bring to these issues. For all of the talk in recent years about "family values," it's been women who have tended to the values of our families, caring for one another and recognizing our responsibility to people other than ourselves. We understand that self-interest and individual rights are important but cannot be the only values that define our lives.

This perspective is not essential to being a woman, or even exclusive to us, but it is shaped by centuries of living out our historical roles, passed down, generation to generation, and is still often evident in how many women talk and think about politics.

While women have historically applied these values primarily to our families, homes, and in service to our communities, we know on some level that they are equally applicable, relevant, and profoundly important in public life at its highest levels. Now, as women take political leadership in increasing numbers, we hope to be taken seriously in the ways we discuss and consider our policies and practices.

This is a moral vision worth aspiring to. We need women's leadership to translate it into the practice of politics. Women can use their values to rethink policy and government in ways that acknowledge a sense of shared responsibility and recognize that people do not have control over all aspects of their social and economic lives. This should lead a rich nation to help its people, out of respect for basic dignity, when they have few choices in their quest to keep body and soul together.

It's not hard to imagine what America, under the kind of women's leadership we envision, might look like. Communities torn apart by disaster would get the resources they need to rebuild. Schools would have the resources they need to truly ensure that no child is left behind. We would not constantly toil to implement more tax cuts for the wealthiest. And we would not wage war against people who are not attacking us.

This is a moral vision that could pull us together rather than tear us apart and build empathy rather than hatred. It has very little to do with how politicians usually talk about moral values, but may be closer to how most of us live our lives -- and how most of the American people would have our government and politicians lead the country.

When politicians return to the mantra of moral values, we hope that women are at the forefront of those conversations. In the 2006 congressional elections, women voters led the call for fundamental change. Their voices should be heeded. We believe that an infusion of women's political leadership carries the promise of reframing our policy debates in ways that bring new and fresh ideas about the values we pursue as a country. We believe that, given the chance to lead, women just might hold the country to a new, and higher, moral standard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caiazza, Ph.D., is director of Democracy and Society at the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

Moms Making History - and Policy
by Valerie Young

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz carries crayons in her purse. She also coordinates the pick-ups and drop-offs of her children's after-school activities. Nothing remarkable in this; certainly, millions of mothers do this every day. But this mother of three, a Florida Democrat, happens to be a member of the United States House of Representatives. And that makes it pretty remarkable indeed.

Not so long ago, mothers in the labor force were advised not to keep family photos on their desks, or the kindergarten art project tacked up over the file cabinet. Almost overnight, it seems, motherhood has emerged as an important employment asset, at least in the political arena. That's because most households in which children are being raised are run by a working mom; today 70 percent of households with children have all resident adults employed outside the home.

And so, as we celebrate what leaders of women's organizations call "Women Making History Month," we note that Nancy Pelosi's first few speeches in her history-making role as Speaker of the House were full of references to her status as a mother and a grandmother. When Hillary Clinton declared herself a candidate for the 2008 presidential election -- making history in national polls that show her as a frontrunner -- she invoked the phrase "as a mother" almost in the same breath as "I'm in it to win." Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), a single mom, is raising a 4-year-old daughter. And you just can't get more obviously maternal than Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (D-WA), pregnant and due this May.

Now that mothers are stepping into positions of political influence, hope for some real change in our public policies is spreading. Women in groups such as MothersOughtToHaveEqualRights, the National Association of Mothers' Centers, Mothers & More, MomsRising, and the Mothers Movement Online have been advocating for paid family leave, accessible and affordable child care, healthcare reform, and better family policies in the workplace, among other proposals.

Congress appears be tuning in, evidenced by a recent Senate committee hearing on a paid sick leave bill, the Healthy Families Act, and by the floating of numerous plans for universal healthcare. On March 27, the Congressional Action Day of the Women's Equality Summit, women from a broad range of organizations will converge on lawmakers to press a family-friendly agenda.

As women legislators bring the sum total of their experiences to Capitol Hill, we are certain that today more members of Congress than ever before know what it's like to have a sick child at home on a day you absolutely have to get to work; to spend way too much of your income on childcare, if you can find it; as well as other care-giving dilemmas encountered millions of times a day in households around the country. (If only they could learn what it's like to put off filling your own prescriptions so you can pay for medicine for your kids; thanks to the comprehensive health insurance they enjoy as members of Congress, they'll have to take my word for it.)

Almost three-quarters of American mothers work outside the home for money, and the majority are working full-time. With household income virtually stagnant in recent years, women's wages are critical to making ends meet. The lack of adequate support for care-giving in the United States is appalling, and mothers aren't they only once who suffer the indifference. Americans are living longer and, with pensions, savings and retirement benefits shrinking, will be working longer and caring for ill or disabled parents, in-laws, spouses and others, all at the same time. That's why we, as a nation, so badly need the paid family leave advocated by mothers' rights organizations.

The legislator-mothers currently serving in the House and Senate are singularly placed to tackle these critical public policy issues, and bring to them a certain practical expertise not typical among members of Congress. The healthcare delivery system is in shambles, with 46 million Americans uninsured. The Family Medical Leave Act is currently under threat, in the process of a review being conducted by the same Department of Labor that has implemented other cutbacks in worker protections and compensation. As it is, the act covers only half of the private sector workforce. The well-being of most Americans will depend in the future on the enforcement and expansion of the act to include all workers, and to provide paid leave, so eligible workers can actually afford to take it.

The women currently making history in Congress know this, see this, and live this. To Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, I say sharpen your crayon. It's time for some serious multi-tasking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young is the advocacy coordinator at the National Association of Mothers' Centers.

Unbought and Unbossed: Following Shirley Chisholm's Path

by E. Faye Williams

As we celebrate Women's History this month, countless references will no doubt be made to the historic strides made by America's women politicians this year, when we saw, for the first time, the gavel of the Speaker of the House wielded by a woman, and a woman candidate emerge as the frontrunner for her party's presidential nomination. And it looks to be an historic year in Black political history, as well, as an African-American senator is touted as a serious contender for the same nomination. Indeed, these are historic precedents in all of American history.

But more than 30 years ago, one person embodied two "firsts," when Rep. Shirley Chisholm of New York threw her hat into the ring of presidential politics when she announced her 1972 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her slogan spoke to neither her race nor her gender, but to the state of U.S. politics in her time (and ours): "Unbought and Unbossed."

Shirley was a woman of "firsts." She was the first Black woman to serve in the U.S. Congress, the first woman to run a meaningful campaign for the presidency of the U.S and the first to chair the National Congress of Black Women, the organization I am privileged to lead today. But to hear Shirley tell it, she'd rather be remembered as "a woman who had guts" than a "first."

I was blessed to meet Shirley while she was in Congress. Like so many young women, I was inspired and awed by her audacity in choosing to run for president. Unfortunately, 35 years later, a woman has yet to win the presidential nomination of either of our political parties, but the momentum generated by Shirley Chisholm assures us that the men-only presidential ticket is a state of affairs that simply can't last.

In 1968, when Shirley came to Congress, it was a lonely place for any woman, never mind one who wasn't white. Today, 87 women serve in the Congress -- 16 in the Senate and 71 in the House, of which 14 are Black. A woman serves as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and many chair powerful committees. "Firsts" do matter when they serve so well that others are inspired to follow.

In 1972, Shirley explained her rationale for running a presidential campaign for an office yet unattainable by a Black person or any woman, as an act that "itself can change the face and future of American politics -- that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you -- even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win."

Shirley was right about changing the face and future of American politics. Just think for a moment about all the women who are serving in state legislatures, as governors, as mayors of cities. Many of these victories are an extension of her races in 1968 and 1972.

Yet, as a nation, we have yet to fulfill the legacy of Shirley Chisholm. As I review the list of legislative priorities that inspire this month's Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day, organized by the National Council of Women's Organizations and the Younger Women's Task Force, I find much of the work Shirley began still unfinished.

In 1970, Rep. Chisholm, a schoolteacher and nationally renowned expert on early childhood education, co-authored a comprehensive childcare bill that met the veto pen of President Richard Nixon, who called it the "Sovietization of American children." Shirley pressed Congress to increase the minimum wage and to provide funding for health care, battles we continue to wage today. She advocated equal pay for women and men; today, women still earn 76 cents for every $1 earned by men. She spoke boldly of a woman's right to reproductive freedom, rights that today are in peril.

Shirley Chisholm's 1970 floor speech introducing the Equal Rights Amendment is considered to be one of America's most important political speeches. And we have yet to ratify this simple statement of equality of the sexes.

So this March, more than simply celebrating women's history, we've got our eyes on the present and the future -- on women making history. Shirley Chisholm laid out an agenda for bringing freedom and justice to all Americans, women and men of all races. It's our task to fulfill.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Williams is the national chair of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc.

The Equal Rights Amendment Redux
by Idella Moore

When Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, in order to get around powerful North Carolina Sen. Sam Ervin's opposition, it added a seven-year time limit on ratification. Even after Congress bowed to public pressure to extend the deadline, proponents were given only an additional three years to finish ratification.

Throughout the 10 years of the ERA campaign, national polls consistently showed the majority of Americans were in favor of the amendment. But state legislators who believed (or purported to believe) the anti-ERA claims that the ERA would destroy families, legalize gay marriage, subject women to the military draft, and mandate unisex toilets, were successful in preventing the ERA from being ratified in 15 state legislatures. By June 30, 1982 the deadline came with the ERA lacking just three of the 38 states needed for ratification. The ERA was defeated. Or was it?

Twenty-four years after the Equal Rights Amendment's ratification "deadline," there is a new campaign to finish ratifying the ERA, and the campaign is beginning to gain some momentum. Although members of Congress have re-introduced ERA ratification resolutions into every session of Congress since 1982, only recently have grassroots proponents developed a new strategy. This "three state" strategy is based upon a legal opinion that says the ERA ratification process is still legally active and can continue from where it left off.

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has presented findings which support such a strategy. According to this opinion, if three more states ratify the ERA Congress has the power to declare it fully ratified and add it to the Constitution. North Carolina is one of the 15 states that didn't ratify the amendment.

This new ERA campaign has had some success. For instance, Illinois' House passed the ERA in May 2003, and Missouri and Florida have introduced ratification resolutions in the last several legislative sessions. In 2005, the Arkansas Senate voted on an ERA ratification resolution. That resolution failed by a margin of only two votes. On January 24, 2007, it was re-introduced during an ERA rally attended by Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe and all of the state's constitutional officers. The committee hearing drew revered former Governor and U.S. Senator David Pryor to speak in favor of the ERA. The committee vote resulted in a tie so the resolution is expected to have a second hearing sometime during the next few weeks. A week after the Arkansas resolution was introduced, ERA advocates in Arizona also introduced a ratification resolution. Currently there are ERA resolutions pending in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Missouri.

But would ratification of the ERA really mean that we would have to share toilet facilities with members of the opposite sex? In 20 states, equal rights amendments (or near equivalents) have been added to state constitutions, yet unisex rest rooms have yet to be mandated. In fact all of the anti-ERA claims are equally without merit.

But why is the ERA still needed? For all the same reasons it was needed before. Although women have made some gains since the 1970s, sex discrimination in the workplace continues to impact women and consequently their families. For instance, the largest class action lawsuit in the history of the U.S. is currently being argued involving 1.6 million women who are suing a major box store for sex discrimination in hiring and promotion practices. These types of cases would be rare if the ERA was ratified.

Furthermore, full time working women continue to make on average 75 cents for every $1 a full time working man makes. Forty-two years after the Civil Rights Act outlawed employment discrimination it is evident that laws are not sufficient for protecting women from unequal treatment. The ERA is necessary to provide the legal muscle to attack sex discrimination vigorously and consistently.

Americans still overwhelmingly support equality of men and women. Eighty-eight percent of the public believe that the ERA should be in the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, our U.S. diplomats insisted that equal rights for men and women were included in the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. An explicit statement to our Constitution that men and women in this country are citizens of equal worth and are entitled to equal treatment under the law is long overdue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moore is the executive officer for 4ERA.org.

The Economic Status of Arizona Women
by Jodi Beckley Liggett

Women have made tremendous economic gains over the last several decades. While women fare much better in some states than others, nowhere do women fare as well economically as men.

So go the findings of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) in their report, "The Best and Worst State Economies for Women." IWPR is a think tank that tracks women's well being across the states. Arizonans will be pleasantly surprised to learn that Arizona does not vie for dead last on these particular rankings. Yet, all the states have far to go in achieving economic equality for women, and Arizona is no exception.

The Arizona Foundation for Women commissioned the Arizona portion of the "Best and Worst States" report which presents rankings on measures related to women's health, education, social justice, and political participation.

The rankings are contained in the Foundation's report, "Arizona Women 2007: A Status Update." The reports indicate that Arizona is doing well on many measures. However, some startling contrasts show just how variable Arizona women's well-being is.

Arizona ranks in the top quarter for measures related to maternal and child health, and female disease, yet has a poor ranking for health insurance coverage. Similarly, we are near the top for women's employment and earnings and business ownership, yet in the bottom half of the nation for number of women above the poverty line. The final weird juxtaposition: Arizona is one of the worst states for women's voter registration and turnout, yet we are near the top for the number of women legislators, and for women in statewide elected office.

A look inside the data reveals even more contrasts. Though our overall ranking for maternal and child health is good, the report indicates that Hispanic and Native American women receive far less prenatal care (about 67 percent) than white women (87 percent).

On another highly ranked measure, female disease mortality, a closer look shows that the incidence of AIDS among African American women in Arizona is over 10 times higher than that of white women (30.3 percent, versus 3.2 percent).

Arizona women's overall employment and earnings are good, compared to other states. However, Hispanic women in Arizona earn 51.5 percent of what white men earn, compared to 77.4 percent for white women. Only 65 percent of Native American women are above the poverty line compared to 90.7 percent of white women. Arizona is second in the nation for the number of women enrolled in postsecondary education, but only 12.7 percent of Hispanic women have a college degree, compared to 28.6 percent of white women.

The K-12 level shows some sobering, but not surprising, news across the board. Arizona has one of the worst dropout rates in the country, and our schools are struggling with one of the highest numbers of English-language learners.

What does it all mean? Arizona has some women who are doing really well, which boosts our ranking in areas like business ownership and earnings. However, as our closer look indicated, things are not going well for all of us -- women of color and poor women have less access to higher education, health care, child care and many other supports that are the keys to self-sufficiency. So while some standouts are pulling our average up, we shouldn't be content in the middle of the pack. A "C" may be a passing grade, but we've got to aim higher than "not the worst."

Helping Arizona women to aim higher should be our mission. We must bring business, governmental and social sector leaders together to affect social change and catalyze women to become informed about the issues, build coalitions and create action for change.

Arizona is doing reasonably well for many women, on many measures. But we must aim higher. By working from facts, and measuring progress over time, we hope to make Arizona the best place possible for women to live and raise their families.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liggett is director of programs and policy research at the Arizona Foundation for Women.

Legislature Attacks Reproductive Rights Again

by Ann O'Hanlon

RICHMOND, VA.--Here we go again. Extremist state legislators are taking the issue of abortion and using it to distract us as they quietly impose their alarming, turn-back-the-clock agenda on women's issues.

So far, by one or two votes, most of their radical proposals have failed to make it to the governor's desk and because of this do not receive much media or other public attention. But no one who cares about family privacy or the rights of women should be complacent. Right now, one Senate committee -- a committee whose members believe that the most intimate personal decisions should be made without intrusion from government -- is all that prevents these proposals from becoming law.

If those committee members weren't there -- and one day soon some of them will not be -- many forms of birth control, including the pill and the IUD, would be subject to Virginia's strict abortion laws or be made entirely illegal. An exaggeration? Not at all. Here's why.

Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Ask the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, even the Code of Federal Regulations of the U.S. Government. That's the definition. But every year, the extremists who want to regulate a woman's uterus try to write into Virginia law that a pregnancy begins the moment fertilization occurs. Beyond that, they try every year to legally define that moment as the beginning of life.

When and if they are successful, that moment of fertilization could be equivalent to the moment of childbirth under law. Anything that stopped the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus could be construed as the legal equivalent of an abortion. This includes the birth control pills that 12 million American women use.

So as our state legislature meets for all of six weeks this calendar year to grapple with issues that truly need government attention, such as education and transportation, some politicians have thrown the following backward-looking proposals into the mix:

* A proposal that defines life as starting at fertilization;

* A proposal to dangerously misinform our young people in public schools' Family Life Education classes, including inaccurate statements on abstinence and contraception; and

* A proposal to ban all abortions (except those where the mothers life is in danger) should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

The sponsors of these proposals are legislators who are rightly troubled by the actions some pregnant women take to either intentionally or unintentionally harm their pregnancy. But rather than work to understand and help such women, who may have mental illness or an addiction and nowhere to turn to for help, the proposals would instead intensify the charges and punishments exacted upon these women.

What we need are bills that increase prenatal care for women in poverty and enhance substance abuse screening of all pregnant women with follow-up care if appropriate, or at the very least require treatment or counseling for the woman in conjunction with her court-ordered punishment.

So while these extremists in Richmond constantly use that divisive word -- abortion -- as their bumper sticker and their public face, make no mistake, what they are working on is an intrusion into more than just a woman's privacy, it is an intrusion into family privacy and family choices concerning birth control.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Hanlon is the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.

Embracing Reproductive Justice

  

by Loretta Ross

If Georgia's lawmakers are smart, they'll take a lesson from the people of South Dakota, who having voted on a ballot measure in last month's election, rejected their legislature's abortion ban. Legislators would do well instead to embrace the cause of reproductive justice, which amounts to nothing less than basic human rights for all the people of our state.

Believe it or not, a majority of Georgia's voters are pro-choice. But that hasn't stopped one legislator from proposing one of the most sweeping anti-choice laws ever written -- one that would outlaw virtually all abortions, even those performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, and including those performed in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest.

It's not as if a procedure to terminate a pregnancy is easily obtained in Georgia. Our restrictive and often discriminatory body of law aimed at women's bodies has resulted in a lack of access to abortion in 94 percent of our counties.

Meanwhile, still pending is a proposal that would prohibit young people from obtaining any form of contraception without parental consent. So restrictive is this law that a young woman in possession of a rhythm chart would be found to be in violation of the law.

Believers in reproductive justice push to create the conditions and opportunities that allow women to make responsible life decisions from a range of options: opportunities to work for living wages, opportunities for affordable quality education, responsive and accessible public services such as good health care, quality schools, and accessible and affordable child care, freedom from personal and state violence, and environmentally safe communities.

Reproductive justice rests on the full achievement and protection of women's human rights. In the realm of reproductive justice, the prevention of pregnancy and childbirth exist within an array of other options that facilitate the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, environmental and economic well-being of women and their children. It is equally important to fight for the right to have a child, the right not to have a child and the right to adequate resources and time for parenting the children we have.

Preliminary results from the 2006 election exit polls show the American people, and women in particular, are focused on fundamental human rights. Legislators who ignore this trend do so at their peril. As this era of change takes hold in the nation, now is not the time to settle for less; it's time to demand more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta J. Ross is national coordinator for the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Rights Health Collective.

15 Years After Thomas Hearings,They Still Don’t Get it

by Ellen Bravo

It’s been 15 years since the Clarence Thomas hearings, and Congressional leaders still don’t get the issue of sexual harassment.

Just take a look at the Mark Foley Scandal.

Those in charge have been so busy pointing fingers, it’s no wonder their solution is an 800-hotline for pages to contact the FBI. Imagine the menu of options: "If you received an instant message, press one. For emails, hit two. Press three if the Congressman showed up drunk outside your residence." Note this is the same FBI that had notice of sexually suggestive emails last July and took no action.

Unfortunately, Hastert and company are not alone in their bungling.

* Suzanne Swift joined the armed forces, only to experience sexual harassment from three superior officers in Iraq. Swift reported an incident to an Equal Opportunity officer; nothing happened. The second was a squad leader, who Swift said had "singled me out as the person he would have sex with during deployment." Only 19, she "first fell for it," then broke it off – and suffered multiple forms of retaliation. After she reported the third officer, some action was taken – but she was accused of sleeping with the man, told to read the policy on honesty and attend role plays on preventing harassment. Once on leave, Swift found herself unable to return to Iraq. She faces court martial.

* An aide to a big city mayor called the personnel office to ask how to file a sexual harassment complaint against him. The personnel officer told her a form would be mailed -- then promptly called the mayor’s chief of staff, who alerted the entire staff. The aide claimed the mayor assaulted her nine times over five years. The mayor held a press conference to apologize for a "consensual affair," claiming it wasn’t harassment because the two were "equals." Besides, his supporters maintained, she was a smart woman who knew the law – why hadn’t she come forward earlier?

* Two women engineers at a well-respected company put up with nudie posters and crude talk as the only females among 50 males. Then one of the women was arranged for to accompany her boss on a long car ride to another state – something outside her job description. The manager engaged in a steady stream of sexual talk, including frequent requests to stop for wine and a hot tub. When the employee complained to the head of HR, she was told, "What happens off company property is outside our purview."

In each case, what’s lacking is an understanding of POWER. Whether for purposes of sexual gratification or the more common purpose of humiliation and degradation, sexual harassment is an abuse of power. That very imbalance makes it harder for those targeted by the behavior to take formal action or to make it stop. Fifteen years ago Senators expressed amazement that Anita Hill had sporadically stayed in touch with the man she said harassed her. They were clueless about the impact such a powerful man could have on one’s career even years later. Similarly, former pages have been quoted as saying they didn’t want to cause a rupture with a well-connected Congressman.

Many think the Thomas hearings spurred a major transformation in U.S. businesses and schools. Some employers and school districts did get the message and have taken significant steps to educate at every level and to establish meaningful channels for reporting and investigating a complaint. But many have taken no or only token action.

Those guilty in the Foley fiasco should face appropriate consequences. But leaders in Congress and elsewhere should take corrective steps, including the following:

* Ensure that every complaint will be taken seriously, while preserving due process for those accused. What first gets reported may well be the tip of the iceberg.

* Arrange meaningful training for anyone involved in handling complaints.

* Establish an outside, wholly independent investigation mechanism for complaints involving powerful, high-level people like elected officials or senior executives. Those affected should have direct access to the independent investigator to lodge the complaint, rather than having to rely on cronies whose own jobs may be in jeopardy depending on the outcome.

The media is focused on whether or not Congressman Foley broke any federal law. But every organization has a moral obligation as well as a legal one. In the final analysis, sexual harassment policy needs to be governed by one clear standard: treat everyone as if they were your son or daughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo teaches a graduate class in sexual harassment at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She is former director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, and co-author of The 9to5 Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment. Her most recent book, Taking on the Big Boys, or Why Feminism is Good for Families, Businesses and the Nation, is forthcoming from Feminist Press.

Ohio Parents Continue to Struggle with Poverty

By Wendy Patton

How do Ohio families with young kids survive at the poverty level? The short answer is: not easily. Research shows that it takes twice the poverty line in rural parts of the state and up to three times the poverty line in Ohio cities to secure a safe and decent but modest standard of living. However, more than one in five Ohio families with young kids cannot reach this basic level.

Last year, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) looked at home economics in 439 communities across the nation. The bare-bones budgets for families with one or two parents and up to three small kids left no room for luxuries: housing was considered safe and sanitary but at HUD’s 40th percentile of local rents; the USDA low-cost food plan included no fast food or restaurant meals; and transportation mileage was solely for work, shopping and church. Health costs were based on the lowest insurance quotes, and tax calculations included any additional income provided by the Earned Income Tax Credit. They found that a one-parent, one-child family in rural Ohio needed $23,952 to make ends meet in 2004. By contrast, the poverty threshold for a family of this size was $13,020. A family with two small kids and two parents in Cleveland needed $45,972, which was 240 percent of the poverty line of $19,157.

Why is there such a wide difference between the poverty threshold and a bare-bones basic family budget? For one thing, they measure different things. Poverty thresholds are an absolute measure of income that does not reflect the varying prices faced by families across the nation. Family budgets measure the relative costs necessary to secure a safe and decent standard of living wherever a family may live.

The poverty threshold, developed in the 1960s, is based on the annual minimum cost of food for a person or family, multiplied times three. It reflects family size and is updated for inflation, but does not reflect additional costs borne by families in which two parents work. EPI found that for families with young children in Ohio, transportation and child care alone may take more than 40 percent of the family budget. A two-parent, two-child family in Steubenville, for example, needs a monthly income of $3,419 to make ends meet. About a third of this budget ($1,111) is needed for good child care. Another 11 percent ($375) is needed for transportation. Many low-wage jobs do not provide the income to cover these two basic budget items.

An Ohio parent earning $7.25 per hour brings home $1,257 per month, and if both parents earn that rate of pay, the monthly family income is $2,513. If they have two young children in child care, they are making less than they need for a safe and decent standard of living anywhere in the state. Like many working families, they are forced to make hard choices about where to save. They may not be living in poverty, but they face a kind of economic hardship that makes it hard to stabilize income in the face of common mishaps: the car that breaks down, the pink slip, or the child care arrangement that falls through, incurring the need for a steep down-payment to a new sitter or center.

Even in the best of times, many parents in low-wage jobs will not earn enough market-based income to meet their family's basic needs. When work income is not enough, publicly provided work supports such as child care subsidies are needed to assist families making hard choices. The basic family budget study highlights that such work supports are crucial to narrowing the gap between earnings and needs. It also demonstrates that the poverty threshold, which sets the bar for such subsidies, must be updated to better reflect the real costs faced by low income workers and their families.

Multiple other solutions could be implemented to assist hardworking families struggling to get by, from an increased minimum wage, to adoption of a state Earned Income Credit, to more public investments in early childhood education. We should consider any or all of these options to create an Ohio that works better for all.
------------------------
Patton is a policy liaison for Policy Matters Ohio.

Preserve Access to the Courts
by Amber Sexton

MONTGOMERY, IL.--When I was 15 years old, I became paralyzed from the waist down. I was a rear passenger in my mother’s car, when it was involved in a frontal collision. I was wearing a lap-only seatbelt, the only restraining device available to me, when the crash forced my body forward and the burden of the lap belt nearly cut my body in half. What we later learned was that since 1966, auto companies knew that rear lap belts were unsafe yet continued to put them in cars, like my mother’s.

I am now in a wheelchair. In order for me to rebuild my life, my family went to court and I received compensation for my injury that provided me the opportunity to live in an accessible home, pay for uninsured medical expenses, and go to college. I was able to complete college and find gainful employment. And I am now proud to say that this spring, I was crowned Ms. Wheelchair Illinois, a feat I never could have accomplished without our court case, which helped me recover and set me on a new road in life.

This month, I will go to Little Rock to compete in a pageant to become Ms. Wheelchair America. At Little Rock, I will stress the importance of providing injured people with the resources needed to improve their quality of life.

It is disheartening, however, to know that there are forces in Illinois that are working against this goal. Large corporations are funding billboards and newspaper advertisements attacking those who use the court system. These special interests are pushing for laws that would make it more difficult for sick and injured people to obtain just compensation.

Making it harder to bring legitimate lawsuits like mine would not only be devastating to those who need fair compensation to rebuild their lives after a catastrophic injury, it would also limit accountability for those responsible for causing damage and harm.

Take my case, for instance. The automobile industry has been aware that lap belts may result in abdominal injuries since the 1960s. For that reason, most cars are equipped with three-point seatbelts that include shoulder straps, which are more effective in preventing injuries. The manufacturer ignored these basic safety precautions in order to save $12 per car.
Today, three-point belts are required in all rear seating positions. The change was made partly because of lawsuits like mine.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed a disgraceful effort to subvert Illinois’ civil justice system with misleading rhetoric about "out of control" judges and juries, resulting in cruel proposals that would cheat the sick and injured. They would also allow corporations to escape financial responsibility for causing injuries and death.

The civil justice system gave me an opportunity to succeed in life. It is a system that empowered me to help others with disabilities and put me on a path to becoming the next Ms. Wheelchair America. Access to this system should be preserved and expanded so that corporations that commit wrongdoing pay for the harm and damage they cause.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sexton, age 26, is Ms. Wheelchair Illinois.

‘Right of Refusal’ Policy Hurts Women, Pharmacists Alike
By Teresa D. Avery, RPh.

As a pharmacist, I am deeply concerned by the Board of Pharmacy’s proposal to allow pharmacists to decline to sell prescriptions based on their personal beliefs. The proposal put forward by the Washington State Pharmacy Association and the Board of Pharmacy does not, in my opinion, represent the views of the majority of pharmacists who practice in our state. Fortunately, the board is now reconsidering the proposal, but advocates for women’s rights remain concerned about what the board may propose next.

Pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals in the community, often giving free health counseling to anyone who approaches our counter. We have a long tradition of non-discriminatory practice and, I believe, that is why we rank among the nation’s most trusted professionals year after year. The public perception has always been that pharmacists have our patients’ health and welfare as our highest priority, even above our own personal beliefs.
However, a few in the profession are promoting a specific political agenda. They are attempting to politicize the profession, creating a culture of fear among pharmacists and patients alike and polarizing our religious communities. The issue of right of refusal is proving to be another area where those with specific and openly conservative views are attempting to change policy in our state.

Some argue that the proposed "right" of refusal is about a pharmacist’s individual moral or religious beliefs and the right to express them. Yet, the Board of Pharmacy’s own Mission Statement reads: "WSBP leads in creating a climate of patient focused practice of pharmacy." So whose rights are really the priority -- the patients’ rights or the few conservative pharmacists’ rights? Isn’t this proposal just a way of legitimizing social extremism by a few pharmacists while skirting the real issue at hand?

The bottom line is that this began as an issue pertaining to the reproductive rights of women, and it is coming to the forefront now because of the agenda promoted by a small and vocal group of people who purposely muddle faith and politics. It is another manifestation of the grassroots campaign that is being waged in cities and states all across the country, and it is a blatant attempt to limit access to legally available methods of birth control. However, all patients should consider that the Board’s proposal would allow pharmacists to refuse any prescription, for any personal reason. I do not believe that the religious beliefs of one person should trump the rights of another in this country.

I never dreamed that the principles of equal access to care for all that I learned at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy 16 years ago regarding the Pharmacist’s Code of Ethics would be so boldly threatened. I am deeply saddened that the progressive standards of pharmacy care in Washington are being challenged by this conservative agenda.
Despite the Board’s proposal and the Washington State Pharmacy Association’s present position, I believe that the majority of pharmacists in this state are fair minded and do not appreciate the profession being politicized in this manner. I believe that most of us are able to separate personal beliefs from professional obligations to our patients. Most of my colleagues understand and respect the long tradition pharmacists uphold. Being unbiased, non-judgmental and always respecting the fact that our patients are entitled to make choices that affect their lives even though others may not agree is the hallmark of our profession.

I strongly urge the Board to maintain the leadership role that Washington has always held in our profession by protecting the health and well-being of people, especially women, of our state; by ensuring that any patient can go into any pharmacy in Washington State and have his or her valid, legal prescription filled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avery is the manager of Cabrini Medical Tower Pharmacy in Seattle.

Choosing Lies and Deception:Crisis Pregnancy Centers in North Carolina

by Melissa Reed

RALEIGH, N.C.--Across the country, anti-choice activists are working to limit women’s reproductive health options by restricting access to abortion and birth control. In addition to legislative action, one branch of this movement is targeting pregnant women through crisis pregnancy centers (CPC).

These anti-choice organizations present themselves as a source of neutral information and advice. In fact the CPC movement uses lies and scare tactics to prevent women from making informed choices about abortion. In North Carolina there are at least 70 of these anti-choice "pregnancy centers."

During the summer of 2003, volunteers from NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina called and visited 10 crisis pregnancy centers in the Triangle, Charlotte, Triad and Wilmington areas as part of an investigation of the CPC’s tactics. They presented themselves as women who thought they might be pregnant and were considering abortion.

During the course of the investigation, they discovered that CPCs provided false information about the medical consequences of abortion.

* One Raleigh CPC told an investigator that infertility was a common side effect of abortion. Studies show no increased risk of fertility problems or poor birth outcomes for women who have first-trimester abortions.

* A CPC in Asheboro told an investigator that having an abortion could increase the risk of breast cancer up to 800 percent. According to the National Cancer Institute, reliable scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer.

The CPCs also misled women about birth control and emergency contraception.

* A Burlington CPC told an investigator that all condoms are defective and have slots and holes in them.

* Another Raleigh CPC told an investigator that emergency contraception "the morning-after pill" was not available in the United States.
CPCs attempted to discredit other, more reliable, sources of information about abortion as well.

* In Salisbury, a CPC told an investigator that she would give her "factual truths" about abortion that were concealed by "society" and the "news media."

* A CPC in Gaston County told an investigator that "doctors won’t tell you everything you need to know" about the side effects of abortion.

Most CPCs provide free pregnancy tests, and some centers also offer free ultrasounds. These services lend legitimacy to the centers, and may attract low-income women without access to medical care. However, the centers are not medically licensed. The pregnancy tests given by centers are usually over-the-counter tests, and results are interpreted by volunteer "counselors" with no formal medical training.

In some cases, investigators reported that CPC staff members deliberately manipulated the administration of the pregnancy test, withholding the results of the test in order to produce anxiety in the client. When investigators asked about other reproductive health services, such as sexually transmitted disease testing or birth control pills, the CPCs responded that they would not or could not provide information about these services.

Concerns over the "scientific accuracy of information" provided by these pregnancy centers have recently been raised in a national report prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA).

The false information given out by CPCs is especially damaging because the pregnancy centers advertise themselves as providing unbiased information to women in need of advice. Of the centers contacted during NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina’s investigation, only half identified themselves as anti-choice during phone conversations. Phone book listings separate CPCs from abortion providers by listing them under "Abortion Alternatives" with a header specifying that they counsel against abortion.

However, many CPCs are also listed under the more neutral-sounding "Pregnancy Counseling" listing, where they may be grouped with Planned Parenthood and other medically licensed facilities. Because there are so many more CPCs than abortion providers in North Carolina (over 70 CPCs versus only 16 abortion providers), in some areas these fake clinics may be the only local option for women seeking information.

In addition to concerns about the services and counseling provided, the funding of CPCs is also problematic. According to the Raleigh News & Observer, in 2004, over $82,000 in taxpayer money from a discretionary fund was funneled to Hope Pregnancy Care Center, a CPC in Stokes County to pay off its mortgage.

Some crisis pregnancy centers provide an honest and supportive setting for pregnant women to discuss reproductive options. However, many do not. The staff entice women to the center under the pretense of providing information, then use anti-abortion propaganda, misinformation and intimidation to pressure women to carry pregnancies to term.

By making women aware of the deception practiced by the fake clinic movement, they will be less likely to take false information at face value. The most direct way of counteracting the CPC's misinformation campaign is to educate women about their full-range of reproductive health care options, including abortion.
---------------------------
Reed is the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina.

Economic Status Should Not Hinder Higher Education
By Sui Lang Panoke

Is access to graduate education exclusive to the upper class?

As a first-year graduate student struggling to make ends meet, I believe the answer to this question is yes. In my experience, searching for funding to pay the extensive costs of my higher education has been an upward climb leading only to dead ends.

I am a single mother who qualifies for the maximum amount in federal aid for graduate students. However, this amount barely covers my tuition, and the costs of housing, books, and living expenses are left entirely to me.

I have no college fund, trust, or inheritance. I don’t independently qualify for private student loans because I lack the substantial credit or the employment history that is required, and I do not have the luxury of having a willing and eligible co-signer. Furthermore, I can only work part-time jobs while in school in order to qualify for childcare assistance.

While I have applied for a few scholarships, I have yet to be awarded one, and I have found that they are an extremely limited and unreliable resource to use to fund graduate school. Scholarships represent less than four percent of the total aid available each year for college students and a merely a fraction of that for graduate students. Contrary to popular belief, there are not millions of scholarships out there that aren’t being used every year.

The majority of students in my situation seeking graduate degrees don’t have the means to just pick up and move to another city without some kind of government assistance. Yet, Federal Pell Grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants are only available to undergraduate students. There are very few alternative options for funding my graduate degree based on my economic status. What’s even more frustrating is that if I were seeking an undergraduate degree, being a single mother would qualify me to have most of my college expenses paid for.

Why aren’t these grants available to graduate students? Federal financial aid is only available for your college education to a certain extent. Once you aspire beyond a bachelor’s degree the door for you is closed unless you, or your family, have the economic ability to finance whatever costs are not covered by your guaranteed federal student loans.

Today’s job-market is increasingly becoming more and more competitive. Bachelor degrees don’t carry the weight that they used to. It is almost necessary to have a graduate, doctorate or law degree to compete with the current highly qualified pool of candidates.

Higher degrees mean high salaries. However, the disparity between those who have access to receiving a higher degree due to their economic resources, and those who have the desire to attend graduate school, but are hindered by financial road blocks, is increasing. It seems that graduate level education is only open to the select few that can afford it, which usually come from wealthy upper class families in the first place.

We are failing to redistribute the wealth in America and the wedge between the upper and lower classes is widening. The system does not allow for equal access to higher education. Graduate students are held to a significantly higher economic burden than undergraduates that comes along with very limited and significantly less support from the federal government.

As a graduate student struggling to expand my education to secure a decent job in order to support my family it is clear that a federal need-based grant program for graduate students must be created. This will help even the playing field by creating access to graduate programs to students based on merit and ambition rather than economic ability. Money invested in graduate education will only benefit the government by improving the quality of life for its citizens, and students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds will have a better shot at achieving the American dream.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panoke is a first-year graduate student at American University. She is working towards a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a certificate in Women, Policy, and Political Leadership through the Women & Politics Institute.

Gender Disparities Among Higher Education Faculty Demand Attention
By Julie Saad

Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard University president who resigned earlier this year, gained notoriety for his controversial remarks on women in science. It was also publicized that the number of women faculty offered tenure had declined every year since Summers assumed the presidency in 2001. While the situation at Harvard received significant media attention, gender disparities among faculty are not unique to that institution. In fact, the trend is national.
Since 1974, the American Association of University Professors has collected data to measure trends in gender equity among full-time faculty members at public and private institutions of higher education. Historically, women have been underrepresented among the highest academic ranks and tenured positions, and have faced a significant salary gap. Despite minor improvements, inequities persist.

Today, female faculty members at all types of U.S. institutions continue to experience disparities with respect to academic rank, tenure, and salary. While women account for 38 percent of full-time faculty overall, they are disproportionately represented at lower ranks and least represented among full professors. The gap between men and women faculty becomes no less evident with respect to tenure. At all types of institutions, women (on average) are 10 to 15 percent less likely than their male counterparts to be in tenure-eligible positions. Consistently since the late 1970s, 47 percent of women on the full-time faculty have had tenure, compared to 70 percent of men. Further, among full-time faculty from all ranks and types of U.S. institutions combined, women earn 80 percent of what men earn. This earnings gap is largest at the highest academic rank (full professor) and smallest at the rank of instructor.

Why should we be concerned? Education has long been viewed as a valuable investment in society. Higher education in particular exists as the arena where research is conducted to shape and influence public policy. Most of this research is executed and analyzed by the dominant professors in the field. Considering the disparities mentioned above, women are less likely to be involved in this process, and as a result, their unique voices and perspectives are often underutilized or left out completely. Of all places, our colleges and universities – which typically promote diversity and provide a forum for open exchange of ideas – should not be sources of inequity. Further, the current higher education climate is not attractive for women to even want to be involved in it. Would you voluntarily subject yourself to a field of work in which you knew you would be paid less than your colleagues and over the course of 30 years, still have a significantly lower chance of achieving one of higher education’s most coveted ranks?

Because of these disparities, women faculty members are disadvantaged and face significant barriers to advancement. Some universities have recognized this situation and experimented with ways to correct it. Special women’s task forces, diversification committees, flexible tenure policies, mentorship programs between faculty in lower and senior ranks, well-defined grievance policies, and services aimed at supporting faculty members with children (i.e., on-site daycare, affordable housing, etc.) have been proposed at various institutions. While such mechanisms are beneficial, gender disparities among faculty have persisted even after implementation of these initiatives.

It is not enough for institutions to implement policies designed to alter this phenomenon. Additionally, they must create a culture that supports utilization of new policies and those already in place. This means formalizing policies to make the entitlements and addressing the climate issues that often discourage female faculty from taking advantage of policies designed to benefit them. It means ensuring support from those individuals at the highest levels of university leadership. It means creating a centralized system in which policies are uniform across entire campuses rather than individual colleges or departments. Though progress has been made, we still haven’t begun to witness the dissolution of gender disparities and barriers to advancement that female faculty members currently face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saad is a graduate student at American University, where she is working on her Master of Public Administration and Graduate Certificate in Women, Policy, and Political Leadership.