Thread by @geekgalgroks

So last night, I wrote a ramble about being the only woman in a room in some very toxic tech situations.

You might wonder, why does she stay? why does she fight? why does she say chemistry was worse?

Today's history lesson: Rajender v. University of Minnesota

The first thing you might notice is that the wikipedia article is a stub.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajender_…

This makes no sense if you realize how important this case was.

It also makes sense because dudes don't get how important this case was.

This case also explains how I made it through 4 years of chemistry with only 1 woman professor at the U.

It explains some offhand remarks.

It explains why I started crying when reading a report about Rajender because I was scared I was going to be in it.

So being that the wikipedia stub doesn't tell the whole story.

To the university archives!

Don't worry, it is a virtual trip.

conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/1…

This report, The Rajender Consent Decree and Women in the Institute of Technology: Discrimination and Institutional Response at the University of Minnesota in the Last Third of the Twentieth Century. Is important.

It gives context.

And I am going to sum it up in this thread.

Shyamala Rajender accepted a post doc fellowship at the University of Minnesota in 1966, in 1969 she was appointed temporary assistant professor.

She kept applying for tenure track positions. But was stuck on the treadmill of yearly contracts.

Moving labs.

Seeing men promoted above her.

I used to think it was awesome, there was a photo in the main chemistry building from the 1920 with a woman in it. I thought "Hell yeah! They were progressive."

I didn't know that was the only woman hired in over 100 years.

Anywho, back to Dr. Rajender.

Back in the 60s and 70s, University's just recommended people for jobs. You rarely found open positions to apply for.

Which meant, if you didn't have access to the old men network, you couldn't get hired.

Dr. Rajender submitted a formal grievance to the University Senate.

It did not go over well.

She contacted the University President.

He admitted there was widespread sex discrimination in higher ed, but said she didn't have a case.

But now it was 1973, and the 1972 amendments to the Civil Rights Law of 1964 were in place.

The Minnesota Human Rights Department investigated and found probable cause of discrimination based on her sex and national origin.

Dr. Rajender filed a formal complaint in Sept. 1973.

In 1975, her lawyer suggested it become a class action lawsuit.

That is right, this case is case law for class action lawsuits.

For it to be a class action lawsuit, they dropped the national origin discrimination so more women at the University could be a part of it.

At the trial, the lawyers for the University switched it up and put Dr. Rajender on trial. Saying that she wouldn't have been hired even if she was a white man.

Finding students to say her accent was hard to understand.

Finding students to say she was bad at teaching.

The trial ended when Dr. Rajender's lawyer subpoenaed the entire Board of Regents.

That caused the University to settle and agree to the Consent Decree.

So what was in this Consent Decree?

conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/1…

Basically, the decree stated that any woman who felt she was discriminated against in hiring and promotion after 1972, had until 1989 to file her claim.

Broad discovery was allowed, and this decree had to published widely so women knew they could file.

Open positions were required to be widely advertised.

Affirmative action for female non-student employees in hiring practices.

A new senate committee on Equal Employment Opportunity for Women.

And the University didn't admit fault nor was blamed.

And things were all fine and dandy...

Hahahahahah, no.

It caused a shitstorm.

Dr. Rajender left chemistry entirely.

This case was SO expensive and universities branded her a troublemaker, that she became a patent lawyer.

She had to leave and become a lawyer to fight this.

The University was required to give any claimant $6,000 to help file her case.

They didn't anticipate the number of women who would be filing.

Also, it was hard for the women to find a good lawyer for $6K.

Oh and the number of cases filed and in progress in 1989, caused the decree to be extended by two years before it finally expired in 1991.

Because of the decree, the University's practice of paying out women less in retirement was discovered.

They used the fact that women lived longer than men to justify paying them less in retirement.

Never mind that the women were paid less to begin with and had less in the funds. Their payouts were less as well.

So raises were put in place to give women parity.

Some men did not appreciate women getting these raises.

Notices were sent out reminding deans that "Rajender salary adjustments are not to be considered when granting annual salary increases."

You think it would be done.

300 women sued, 180 got settlements

~1000 got raises

But no, academia can be petty at times.

There was retaliation against women.

A chemistry professor had animal feces spread on her desk.

A male faculty member counter-sued that the pay-raise settlement for women discriminated against him.

More groups were created to support female faculty and staff on campus.

Maternity leave policies were FINALLY enacted.
Childcare appeared on campus.

Groups for undergraduates were created.

I always thought it weird that there was both WISE and SWE on campus.

They were created because of effects from the Rajender Consent Decree.

So anytime I read something about a bro writing an email or memo.

I am reminded this is nothing new.

It has been going on for years.

Men in executive positions let it happen and have been for decades.

Read this New York Times piece from 1987 about the fallout from the decree while it was still in place.

nytimes.com/1987/11/08/edu…

So if you are a white dude that has made it this far,

Congratulations!

Now go tell a white woman, a Black person, an Indigenous person, and a person of color (BIPOC) your pay.

And any other non white male person in your office.

We can't fight what we don't know.