On my evolving thoughts on the #UCDavis saga involving Chancellor Linda Katehi

Still trying to wrap my brain around the controversy at UC Davis involving our Chancellor (the head of the University) Linda Katehi (see some of these news stories if you are not aware of what is going on).  In some sense I could just watch this all from the sidelines and see what happens.  But that is not in my nature.  And, over the last month I have gotten a near endless stream of comments and suggestions (some in private, some in public) about the topic.  Some say I need to be more vocal in condemning Chancellor Katehi (e.g., a student in my lab told me the other day that they have talked to faculty who are wondering why I am being so hesitant to condemn Chancellor Katehi).  Other people (many) say any negative posts about Katehi are damaging UC Davis.  Still others say and and all actions of Katehi must be considered in the context of overwhelming sexism against female leaders.  And so on.  In total I have probably gotten dozens of private comments and even more public comments about the case with suggestions for what I should be doing here.

For those who know me or know about me, I assume you know I am not exactly shy about expressing my opinions on topics like behavior of academics or academic institutions.  For example, just after joining UC Davis I wrote a post that was shared widely, condemning a UC Davis Vice Provost over her misuse of her position in support of Closed Access publishing: Vice Provost of U. C. Davis on the wrong side of Open Access.



I give out all sorts of snarky awards on my blog to friends, colleagues, and other folds in the world for doing things I think are inappropriate (e.g., see this STAT story). Sometimes I go overboard in this, but certainly I am not hesitant at expressing thoughts when I think there has been something untoward going on.  I try as much as possible to turn my microscope on myself and UC Davis too.  For example, see this post from a few weeks ago: UC Davis Storer Lecture series - since 1963 87% of speakers are male.

Painful: #UCDavis Storer Lecture series - since 1963 87% of speakers are male https://t.co/uaBbnxPv5T pic.twitter.com/9GuFORRiqu

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) April 21, 2016

Again, I know I overdo this sometimes but I am certainly not hesitant to make my feelings know.

But the case of Chancellor Katehi leaves me on the fence and with my fingers unclear what to type somewhat.  And so I thought I would try to write up what my thoughts are here, even if they are muddled.  I wonder what other people think of the situation and would love feedback (as always) on this post.

So - what is so complex here?  What am I trying to wrap my brain around?  I think my challenge here comes down to the following: I don't know whether some of the responses (including mine) to Chancellor Katehi's actions are tinged with bias, especially sexism.  Or, in other words, are the actions and inactions of Chancellor Katehi "firing offenses" or have they been overblown by biased and sexist points of view.

And honestly, I do not know exactly how to figure this out.  On the one hand, I accept that there are massive amounts of sexism in society and certainly in regard to how we judge women in power.  On the other hand, I think the actions and inactions of Chancellor Katehi and her administration have been serious (in a bad way).  I note - one thing I have done to try and better understand my own feelings and actions in this saga is to compile all my posts and communications as best I can and go through them.

This has helped me sort out my thoughts and also helped show me at least that I was certainly not going easy on the UC Davis administration over these cases.  I also re-examined my posts about the Pepper Spray incident and aftermath from 2011 which has many parallels to the current situation and also involved Chancellor Katehi. See here for those: posts about the UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident and Aftermath.



Below is a discussion based in part on going through the news stories and posts of others and posts of mine.

Maybe it is best to start with this.  A few weeks ago I was pondering the fate of Chancellor Katehi and I wrote a detailed post about this The #UCDavis Chancellor's Board Positions and the Need for a More Public, Open and Early Disclosure System.




I also included in that discussion some possible conflicts of interest of my own that might be clouding my judgment.  Those are relevant to this post too and I encourage people to read them.  Anyway, this post was written at the beginning of the latest controversy when all that had been disclosed was her acceptance of a set of outside Board positions that were controversial.  I had written many mini posts and Tweets about the situation such as those below:

This is why I no longer use textbooks for courses. UC Davis chancellor received $420,000 on book publisher’s board https://t.co/q1evG9aTcG

— Bruce Rannala (@BruceRannala) March 5, 2016

And I also had started to see some calls for her to be fired and such and made a point to say I did not feel things were that far along and I also linked to some of those posts.

 

Am very disappointed in board membership choices by #UCDavis Chancellor Katehi but calls for resignation seem woefully reactionary (1/n)

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 5, 2016

Not trying to defend choices - I think she needs to disclose more details and actions (e.g., on Wiley) & how there was no COI (2/n)

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 5, 2016

But at this time, as far as I can tell no laws or policies were violated (actually it seems UC pushes / encourages board membership) 3/n

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 5, 2016

So rather than hanging Katehi out to dry as Janet Napolitano has done, better if UC took some responsibility 4/n pic.twitter.com/ovR7SY4Xet

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 5, 2016

What we need to do is systematically reverse the corporatization of UC from the top to the bottom and not just pick at one scab 5/n

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 5, 2016

#UCDavis Profs Niemeier & Beamish on UC Admins sitting on boards: Let’s focus on the process, not the person https://t.co/PWRY0ilXQd

— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 10, 2016

Spring at #Yolo Basin

As many know, I just love Yolo Basin.  Here are some of the better pics I have taken this Spring.

Letter from #UCDavis Profs to Janet Napolitano about possible sexism in responses to Chancellor Katehi's activities

The current Chair of the UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate forwarded an email to UC Davis faculty today.  This email included a letter that had been send from from Linda Bisson (past Chair of the UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate) and Rachael E. Goodhue (Chair Elect of UC Davis Division of the Academic Senate) to the President of the University of California Janet Napolitano.  The letter's overall message is concern about possible sexism in how the Chancellor of UC Davis is being treated in regard to recent events at UC Davis. 

I note - I have received many (over a dozen) private messages also expressing concern that some of the reaction to Chancellor Katehi's activities may be sexist.  Mind you - most of these people are not defending the activities of the Chancellor but are concerned about the responses to her activities.  I think it is important for these expressions to be more widely viewed and thus I asked Linda Bisson if I could post it here and she said yes. 

---

From: Linda Bisson
Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:43 AM
Subject: Letter to President Napolitano

Dear President Napolitano:

We want to express grave concern over a pattern of negativism in the press and social media regarding women Chancellors and senior administrative leaders. There are strong parallels between the singularly intensive criticism of our Chancellor Linda Katehi and that previously of Chancellors Fox (UCSD) and Denton (UCSC), and of UC Vice President Greenwood. Yet, the activities that are being criticized clearly fall within the standards of UCwide practice. This pattern is exemplified by a 2006 LA Times article that criticized compensation practices for senior UC executives: those singled out for criticism for “extravagant pay practices, perks and privilege for top executives” are all women (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/16/local/me-cap16). The intensity of the criticism at the time ended in tragedy for Chancellor Denton. Chancellor Fox’s term was equally framed as fraught with turmoil, turmoil apparently not experienced by her male colleagues who were facing identical issues due to budget cuts and lack of diversity and inclusion. In an article in the San Diego Union Tribune written on Chancellor Fox’s decision to step down (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/jul/05/fox- leaving-ucsd/?#article-copy), she is described in terms steeped in implicit gender bias such as the quote ascribed to former President Atkinson: “She handled that as well as she could have handled it” – not as well as anyone could have handled it or as well as it could have been handled.

Women in leadership positions are often the victims of intense implicit bias and, as a consequence, of the phenomenon of “single storyism” - the reduction of their actions to a simple narrative that appeals to the biases of a broad section of society, in this case implicit gender bias and women being incompetent for their position. Whatever they say or do in response is twisted to fit the “single story.” We think the LA Times article listed above illustrates perfectly the problem of the single story experienced by senior women administrators at UC. If the LA Times story were rewritten today, Chancellor Katehi’s name is likely the only one that would be added to the list.

All of UC is richer because of the participation of women and underrepresented groups at all levels. We know you and your leadership team share this belief. We are concerned that UCOP does not recognize that senior administrators who are identified with an underrepresented identity vital to our diversity are subject to vilification in the press simply because of that identity. We are also concerned, as recent press regarding our Chancellor Katehi demonstrates, that Chancellors and other senior administrators are not well-equipped to deal with single storyism, nor is there the recognition that others, such as UCOP, must step in to address the criticism as well.

The absence of factual information on UC policies and practices with respect to external compensation for all senior administrators has led to speculative and negative public debate regarding a single senior woman, when the practice of external involvement is widespread. We would like to request clear articulation from UCOP of both the formal policies and the informal practices as they pertain to executive compensation (e.g., have senior managers been encouraged to participate in activities outside UC). We note that legislators are calling for the same review. UCOP's understanding of the broader issues involved is essential to informing these external discussions. The need for UCOP to take action is urgent.

We thank you for considering this request.

Linda F. Bisson, Former Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate, 2006-2008 & 2011-2012
Rachael E. Goodhue, Chair Elect, Davis Division of the Academic Senate 2016-2018

UC Davis Storer Lecture series - since 1963 87% of speakers are male

I wrote this blog post a while ago but never published it partly out of fear for upsetting some of my colleagues.  I try to be brave about such things, but I guess I just did not quite get up the poxy.  Well, today something came up that stimulated me to write the post.

I got an email announcement for a talk that seems potentially quite interesting. The problem is not the talk.  The problem is with the endowed Lectureship that this talk is connected to.  So here is the post I have worked on on and off over the last year or more.

---

UC Davis has an endowed lecture series- the Storer Lectureship in the Life Sciences.  It has been running since the 1960s and is a relatively big deal on campus here.  The speakers come in, usually give one or two talks (one for the public and one for researchers).  They usually have a big dinner (I have gone to a few of these) and the speakers get a decent honorarium (a few thousand dollars) and some sort of gift.

Most years I have been here, I have received a request from the organizers for suggested speakers and every once in a while I have made suggestions, some of which have even led to invitations.  Recently, I had suggested a famous colleague who is also a UC Davis alum.  Alas, she could not come.  The organizers asked if I had any other suggestions and I sent them a list of a few candidates who are both very good, well known and do something related to microbes.  The organizers really liked one of the suggestions and asked if I would be willing to invite this person.

So I started drafting a letter.  And as part of drafting a letter I wanted to give examples of past speakers to show how great a set of speakers we had for this series.  So I Googled "Storer" and
UC Davis" or something like that and got to the page:

Storer Lectureship in the Life Sciences

And that is when I got a bit heartbroken.  The speakers have been, well, very male.   I note I spent a while looking at descriptions of each speaker that I did not know to try and determine their gender, looking at their web sites if available, or how they were described (e.g., what pronouns were used).  I am pretty confident in the assignments though I realize this is an error prone approach.  Here is the full list as far as I have put together with the males labelled in yellow and females in green.
 

Oct 5-16, 1963	Ernest W. Caspari	University of Rochester
Oct 17-31, 1966	Vincent G. Derhicr	Univesity of Pennsylvania
May 7-20, 1967	Ernst Mayr	Harvard University
Nov 3-15, 1968	Elizabeth C. Crosby	Univesity of Michigan
Jan 3-15, 1969	W.D. Billings	Duke University
Apr 13-23, 1969	Frank Fenner	Australian National University,
Apr 5-19, 1970	A. Frey-Wyssling	Eidgenossiche Tcchnische Hochschule
Nov 11-23, 1970	Carl L. Hubbs	Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Feb 1-12, 1971	H.L. KornBerg	University of Leicester, England
Nov 22-Dec 3, 1971	Hilary Koprowski	University of Pennsylvania
Jan 17-28, 1972	George Beadle	University of Chicago
Jan 17-28, 1972	Muriel Beadle	University of Chicago
May 1-12, 1972	Sterling Hendricks	Agriculture Research Service, U.S.D.A
Oct 16-27, 1972	George Gaylord Simpson	The Simroe Foundation
Feb 23-Mar 9, 1973	Sir Alan S. Parkes	The Galton Foundation
Apr 9-20, 1973	Peter R. Marler	The Rockefeller University
May 7-18, 1973	George C. Cotzias, M.D.	Brookhaven National Laboratory
Nov 6-13, 1973	Eugene E. Odum	University of Georgia
Nov 12-16, 1973	Peter Alexander	Royal Marsden Cancer Hospital
Mar 4-15, 1974	Davis A. Hamburg, MD.	Stanford University School of Medicine
Apr 1-15, 1974	Kent V. Flannery	University of Michigan
Nov 4-15, 1974	Garrett Hardin	University of California, Santa Barbara
Mar 30-Apr 9, 1975	Kenneth J. Carpenter	University of Cambridge
Apr 20-May 2, 1975	Murray S. Blum	University of Georgia
Oct 20-31, 1975	Bert W. O'Malley, M.D.	Baylor College of Medicine,
Apr 12-23, 1976	Sydney Brenner	Division of Cell Biology of the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, England
May 17-28, 1976	Peter S. Carlson	Michigan State University,
Nov 22-Dec 3, 1976	Roger Y. Stanier	Pasteur Institute,
Jan 24-Feb 4, 1977	Peter Albersheim	University of Colorado
Feb 22-Mar 4, 1977	*Jere Mead, M.D. Cecil K. and Philip Drinker	Harvard University
Apr 11-12, 1977	S. J. Singer	University of California, San Diego
Nov 20-30, 1977	James D. Ebert	Marine Biological Laboratory
Feb 8-15, 1978	Sir Kenneth Blaxtcr	Rowen Research Institute
Apr 5-12, 1978	Eric H. Davidson	California Institute of Technology
Oct 9-20, 1978	Jutgen Aschoff	Max-Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology
Feb 20-22, 1979	*Burt L. Vallee, Paul C. Cabot	Harvard Medical School
Apr 24-26, 1979	Carl R. Woese	University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
Nov 5-16, 1979	Daphne J. Osborne	Oxford University
Februarv 4-15, 1980	John F. Eisenberg	Smithsonian Institution.
Apr 16-18, 1980	George E. Palade, M.D.	Yale Medical School
May 5-16, 1980	Jerre Levy	University of Chicago
Oct 27-30, 1980	Colin Blakemore	Oxford University
Jan 21-27, 1980	Pierre Dejours	CNRS
Feb 26-Mar 5, 1981	Richard Alexander	University of Michigan
Oct 20-27, 1981	Alfred F. Harper	University of Wisconsin Madison
May 11-19, 1982	Glenn W. Burton	USDA-SEA
Oct 11-18, 1982	Richard F. Leakey	National Museums of Kenya
Jan 6-11, 1983	Eric R. Kandel, M.D.	Columbia University,
Oct 12-18, 1983	Donald S. Farner	University of Washington
Feb 13-15, 1984	Daniel Branton	Harvard University
Apr 24-26, 1984	J. Michael Bishop	University of California, San Francisco
Dec 3-6, 1984	Maurice Fried	National Research Council
Apr 3-8, 1985	John Krebs	Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology
May 8-14, 1985	Geoffrey M. Ole Maloiy	University of Nairobi
Oct 8-10, 1985	Michael P. Hassell	Imperial College, London
Apr 21-24, 1986	John Maynard Smith	University of Sussex.
Dec 1-4, 1986	Aldo Carl Leopold	Boyce Thompson Institute
Mar 2A, 1987	Gerald Edelman	The Rockefeller University
Nov 10-12, 1987	Jean-Claude Chcrrnann	Pasteur Institute, Paris France
Jan 15-20, 1988	Jean-Pierre Changeux	Pasteur Institute, Paris France
Apr 11-15, 1988	John I. Harpcr	University College of North Wales
Oct 17-21, 1988	Rudiger Wehner	University of Zurich
Oct 23-26, 1989	John C. Torrey	Harvard University
Feb 26-Mar 2, 1990	Heinz Saedler	Max-Planck-Institute
Nov 5-7, 1990	Francis Crick	The Salk Institute
Jan 28-31, 1991	Thomas A. McMahon	Harvard University
May 28-30, 1991	Lynn Margulis	University of Massachusetts
Nov 18-21, 1991	Richard C. Lewontin	Harvard University
Feb 4-6, 1992	Philip Leder	Harvard Medical School
Apr 13-16, 1992	Patrick Bateson	University of Cambridge
Nov 16-19, 1992	Melvin I. Simon	California Institute of Technology
Feb 1-5, 1993	Anne McLaren	Wellcome/CRC Institute
Apr 13-16, 1993	Judah Folkman	Harvard Medical School
Jan 24 -27, 1994	Philippa Marrack	National Jewish Center
Feb 28-Mar 3, 1994	Stephen O'Brien	National Cancer Institute
Apr 18-21, 1994	Roy M. Anderson	University of Oxford
Oct 31-Nov 2, 1994	Michael J. Berridge	The Babraham Institute
Feb 6-10, 1995	Hal Hatch	CSIRO Division of Plant Industry
May 1-5, 1995	Elaine Fuchs	The University of Chicago
Oct 16-19, 1995	Peter Ellison	Harvard University
Mar 4-8, 1996	Gottfried Schatz	University of Basel, Switzerland
Apr 8-10, 1996	Daniel Hillel	University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Feb 3-6, 1997	Peter R. Grant	Princeton University
Apr 14-17, 1997	William J. Lennarz	State University of New York
May 5-7, 1997	Carolyn W. Slayman	Yale University School of Medicine
Apr 20-22, 1998	Floyd Bloom	The Scripps Research 1nstitute
May 18-20, 1998	Ian Wilmut	Roslin Institute
Jan 11-13, 1999	Leroy E. Hood	University of Washington
Apr 26-28, 1999	Patricia Goldman-Rakic	Yale University School of Medicine
Jan 30-31, 2001	Charles Arntzen	Arizona State University
		University of Oxford
Mar 4-6, 2002	Jan H. Hoeijmakcrs	Erasmus University
Apr 11-12, 2002	Fred H. Gage	The Salk Institute
May 6-7, 2002	Phillip A. Sharp	Center for Cancer Research, MIT
Jan 13-15, 2003	George M. Martin, M.D.	University of Washington
Mar 10-11, 2003	Kim A. Nasmyth	Vienna Biocenter
Apr 28-29, 2003	Tim Flannery	Director of the South Australian Museum
Dec 1-2, 2003	William Greenough	University of Illinois
Feb 18-19, 2004	Bruce Ames	Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute
Nov 29-30, 2004	Hans Herren	International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
Apr 26-27, 2005	H. Robert Horvitz	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
May 9-10, 2005	Steven Chu	Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Jan 24-25, 2006	Cynthia Kenyon	University of California, San Francisco
Mar 14-15, 2006	Thomas D. Pollard	Yale University
Oct 23-24, 2006	Mimi Koehl	University of California, Berkeley
Dec 4-5, 2006	Simon A. Levin	Princeton University
Apr 5-6, 2007	Sir Peter Crane, FRS	University of Chicago
Apr 23-24, 2007	Stephen Quake	Stanford University
May 14-15, 2007	Pasko Rakic	Yale University
Mar 23-24, 2009	Sean Carroll	University of Wisconsin
Apr 20-21, 2009	H. Allen Orr	University of Rochester
May 19-20, 2009	John Doebley	University of Wisconsin
Mar 11-12, 2010	Elliot Meyerowitz	California Institute of Technology
May 17-18, 2010	Robert Langer	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
May 11-12, 2011	Nina Federoff	Pennsylvania State University
Jan 11-12, 2012	Jane Lubchenco	NOAA
Apr 24-25, 2012	Ilkka Hanski	University of Helsinki
May 30-31, 2012	Loren Rieseberg	University of British Columbia
Oct 2-3, 2012	Ed Delong	MIT
Nov 15, 2012	Jordi Bascompte	Estación Biológica de Doñana
Nov 19, 2012	Simon Boulton	London Research Institute
Jan 16, 2013	Ary Hoffman	University of Melbourne
Jan 31, 2013	Jonathan Losos	Harvard
Mar 18, 2013	Gloria Coruzzi	NYU
Apr 10-11 2013	Peter Agre	Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
May 6, 2013	Richard Wrangham	Harvard
May 16, 2013	Sue Carter	RTI International
May 28, 2013	Larry Gold	CU Boulder
June 4, 2013	Eric Schadt	Mount Sinai
June 05, 2013	Nancy Moran	Yale
Oct 28-29, 2013	Walter Bodmer	University of Oxford
Dec 4-5, 2013	Ronald Kaback	UCLA
Feb 24, 2014	Patricia Wright	Stony Brook
Mar 5-6, 2014	Steve Carpenter	University of Wisconsin
Apr 9-10, 2014	Jerry Coyne	University of Chicago
May 20-21, 2014	May Berenbaum	University of Illinois
May 28-29, 2014	Joel Cohen	Rockefeller University
Oct 28-29, 2014	Charles Rice	The Rockefeller University
Nov 19-20, 2014	Rolf Zinkernagel	University of Zurich
Apr 15-16, 2015	Tim Clutton Block	University of Cambridge
Oct 7-8, 2015	Richard Lenski	Michigan State
April 22, 2016	Steve Nowicki	Duke University

The total numbers come to 19 females out of 142 speakers or ~13% female and 87% male.  Ugh.

And the person I had suggested to invite was male.  So I wrote back to the organizers and I wrote:

From: Jonathan Eisen 

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:34 AM 

To: XXXCc: XXX 

Subject: Abyssmal gender ratio of speakers in the Storer Lectureship series 

XXX and XXXX 

With sincere apologies but ... 

In preparing a letter of invitation for XXX I decided to include some examples of previous Storer Lecturers. And therein lies the problem On the web sitehttp://www.dbs.ucdavis.edu/seminars_and_events/storer_lecture_list.htmlfrom my count, there are 121 past speakers listed. Of these, 15 appear to be female (from my estimate). That comes to 12%. That is embarassaingly low. I hope my calculations here are wrong. 

Can you tell me if the Storer Lectureship has any policies regarding diversity of speakers? If yes, can you provide me with those details.

If no, I recommend you implement one as soon as possible. Either way, I refuse to have my name affiliated with this series, and will not invite anyone to talk in it, without further information and without some serious attempt to figure out how to do a better job representing the diversity of biologists who could give such talks. 

Jonathan

They wrote back with a very detailed response and were very supportive of the concept of increasing diversity of speakers.  And they explained some of the efforts they had made in this regard.  And they really seem to be trying in some ways.  But in the end, their main justification for the lack of diversity was that they were trying to invite already recognized, in essence famous, biologists.  People who had won a Nobel or were in the National Academy of Sciences or were HHMI investigators.  And this pool, that they had chosen, was skewed in gender balance.

So I wrote back to them June 18:

All
Thanks very much for the response.

I understand you have some constraints and greatly appreciate that you are committed to trying to improve the diversity of speakers.  However, the end result is truly not acceptible in my mind and therefore I believe more needs to be done, urgently, to improve the situation.

What are some possible ways to improve the situation?

Well, the number one recommendation I would make would be to not constrain the pool to honorific groups that themselves have severe skews.  No we cannot solve those skews and there are many causes for them.  But I believe it is a major mistake to use the diversity of those groups (NAS, Nobel, HHMI) as a target.  Either invite people to represent diversity well even from a constrained pool, or, open up to a broader pool (there are plenty of incredible scientists who have not gotten HHMI, NAS, or Nobels).

In addition to opening up the pool and not aiming at such a low bar, there are many things one can do to improve the diversity of speakers.  I have written about this extensively as have many others.  I can point the committee to some of these articles if interested.

In the end, whatever the reasons are, the Storer series has ended up with extremely biased gender ratio of speakers.  I think it is up to the committee to fix this with a combination of actions.  But the first thing I would recommend is to not use the diversity of a set of pools you have chosen as an excuse.  We can and should do better and if the pools are the reason, the pools from which you sample need to be changed.

Jonathan

They wrote back, saying they were really committed to achieving better gender balance in the future writing "we are totally committed to the same goals as you in terms of gender balance now and in the future." And they also wrote that they expected "the final lineup to reflect at least 30 percent or more female" as long as one additional woman (the person I had originally recommended) would come (though I had told them she said she could not).  And then they asked if I would reconsider inviting the man who I had been about to invite that had started this whole discussion.

So I wrote back again July 14:

Thanks again for the response. And though I do not want to continue beating a dead horse, I am not convinced we are doing enough in this area. For example, what explains the "at least 30 percent" and how close to 30% will that be. This is important as, for example, the National Science Foundation will not support their people attending meetings if female speakers are at < 33%. I think 30% is, to be honest, just not acceptable in biology. So beofre contributing any more to this series I need to know exactly what is meant by "we are totally committed to the same goals as you in terms of gender balance now and in the future."

For example, here are some questions I would like to know the answers to:

• Are you committed to achieving gender balance in the speaker series or just saying you are being more even than before?
• Are you committed to researching and using diverse options to ensure diversity of speakers beyond just focusing on who is invited?
• Are you interested in understanding why the series has been so undiverse in the past and addressing this directly or just moving forward?
• Are you willing to address the lack of diversity in the past publicly and also discuss efforts to improve the diversity? 

I would very much like to know more detail about how serious you are to having a diverse series and what you plan to do to achieve this. 

With apologies, but in regard to inviting XXX or XXX. I am sorry but given the past record of this series, which as I said is among the worst I have seen anywhere, I am just not willing to be involved in any way until I see a stronger and more public committment to diversity. 

I am happy to help with the series and to help improve the diversity of speakers. But this should be done openly and publicly and forcefully. And without evidence of this, I am unable and unwilling to be involved.

And, well, I have not heard from them again.  So, I am writing this.  For many reasons.  But a key one is, I think we need to be more public about such issues.  And we just need to fix things that are broken.

So today I decided to make the post live.  I wish I had done this earlier.

---

---

Some responses

The Tree of Life: UC Davis Storer Lecture series - Concerning stats about gender disparities from @phylogenomics https://t.co/Auo9KQWoG9

— Andy Jones (@andyojones) April 21, 2016

Important read: "UC Davis Storer Lecture series - since 1963 87% of speakers are male" https://t.co/gcsgSt1Woe

— Alexandra Rosati (@AlexGRosati) April 21, 2016

Another example of male-biased seminar series. https://t.co/cFFrErA8Ah

— Haldre Rogers (@haldre1) April 22, 2016

American Academy of Arts and Sciences - where men choose men to be cheered

So - I saw multiple posts by colleagues on Facebook and Twitter about gender skew in the newly elected members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So I decided to take a look at the list. And it is indeed really skewed. Here is my analysis of gender ratio for mathematical and physical sciences and biological sciences.

Field	Male	Female
Math and Physical Sciences Totals	32	10
Math	5	1
Physics	6	1
Chemistry	7	1
Astronomy	3	4
Engineering	5	1
CS	5	2
Intersection	1	0
Biology Totals	31	8
Biochemistry	4	2
Cell and Development	7	1
Neuroscience	6	2
Ecovo	7	1
Medical	5	1
Intersection	2	1

More detail below:

CLASS I — Mathematical and Physical Sciences (41)

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS (4)

SECTION 1 — Mathematics (6)

Pavel Etingof

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Leslie Greengard

New York University/Simons Foundation

Janos Kollar

Princeton University

Bryna R. Kra

Northwestern University

Andrei Okounkov

Columbia University

Vladimir Rokhlin

Yale University

SECTION 2 — Physics (7)

Barbara V. Jacak

University of California, Berkeley

Christopher Jarzynski

University of Maryland

Hirosi Ooguri

California Institute of Technology

Roberto D. Peccei

University of California, Los Angeles

Robert J. Schoelkopf

Yale University

Steven R. White

University of California, Irvine

Foreign Honorary Member — Physics

Thibault Damour

Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques

SECTION 3 — Chemistry (8)

Donald Hilvert

Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

Jeffery W. Kelly

Scripps Research Institute

Scott J. Miller

Yale University

Melanie S. Sanford

University of Michigan

Isiah M. Warner

Louisiana State University

Michael R. Wasielewski

Northwestern University

Foreign Honorary Members — Chemistry (2)

Hans-Joachim Freund

Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

R. Benny Gerber

Hebrew University of Jerusalem/University of California, Irvine

SECTION 4 — Astronomy and Earth Sciences (7)

Andreas J. Albrecht

University of California, Davis

Joshua A. Frieman

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory/University of Chicago

Jacqueline Hewitt

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chryssa Kouveliotou

George Washington University

Terry A. Plank

Columbia University

Lisa Tauxe

University of California, San Diego

Foreign Honorary Member — Astronomy and Earth Sciences

Thomas F. Stocker

University of Bern

SECTION 5 — Engineering Sciences and Technologies (6)

Donna Gail Blackmond

Scripps Research Institute

Gerald G. Fuller

Stanford University

Steve Granick

Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Republic of Korea

Donald E. Ingber

Harvard University/ Boston Children's Hospital

Robert B. Phillips

California Institute of Technology

Peter W. Voorhees

Northwestern University

SECTION 6 — Computer Sciences (6)

Jeffrey A. Dean

Google

Sanjay Ghemawat

Google Incorporated

Anna R. Karlin

University of Washington

Tom M. Mitchell

Carnegie Mellon University

Tal D. Rabin

IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Scott J. Shenker

University of California, Berkeley

CLASS I INTERSECTION CANDIDATES (1)

Timothy P. Lodge

University of Minnesota

CLASS II — Biological Sciences (38)

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS (6)

SECTION 1 — Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology (6)

Richard H. Ebright

Rutgers University

Lila M. Gierasch

University of Massachusetts

Robert M. Glaeser

University of California, Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Adrian R. Krainer

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Lawrence A. Loeb

University of Washington

Eva Nogales

University of California, Berkeley

SECTION 2 — Cellular & Developmental Biology, Microbiology, and Immunology (8)

Keith W.T. Burridge

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mark W. Hochstrasser

Yale University

Michael J. Lichten

National Cancer Institute

Joachim Messing

Rutgers University

Carl F. Nathan

Weill Cornell Medical College

Anne M. Villeneuve

Stanford University

Foreign Honorary Members — Cellular & Developmental Biology, Microbiology, and Immunology (2)

Carl-Henrik Heldin

Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research/Uppsala University

Christof Niehrs

Institute of Molecular Biology

SECTION 3 — Neurosciences, Cognitive Sciences, and Behavioral Biology (8)

Michael S. Brainard

University of California, San Francisco

John Gabrieli

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alex L. Kolodkin

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Kelsey C. Martin

University of California, Los Angeles

Bruce R. Rosen

Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts General Hospital

John L. R. Rubenstein

University of California, San Francisco

Foreign Honorary Members — Neurosciences, Cognitive Sciences, and Behavioral Biology(2)

Tamar Flash

Weizmann Institute of Science

Nancy Y. Ip

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

SECTION 4 — Evolutionary and Population Biology, and Ecology (7)

Farooq Azam

University of California, San Diego

Andrew G. Clark

Cornell University

Douglas J. Emlen

University of Montana

Joel Grant Kingsolver

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mark Alan McPeek

Dartmouth College

Sarah P. Otto

University of British Columbia

Foreign Honorary Member — Evolutionary and Population Biology, and Ecology

Ary A. Hoffmann

University of Melbourne

SECTION 5 — Medical Sciences, Clinical Medicine, and Public Health (6)

John Michael Carethers

University of Michigan Medical School

James R. Downing

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Gary Gilliland

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Beatrice H. Hahn

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Warren J. Leonard

National Institutes of Health

Ralph Weissleder

Harvard Medical School/ Massachusetts General Hospital

CLASS II INTERSECTION CANDIDATES (3)

Steven E. Jacobsen

University of California, Los Angeles

Yang Shi

Harvard Medical School/ Boston Children's Hospital

Foreign Honorary Member — Intersection

Karen H. Vousden

Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, U.K.

Also these cross-field areas are not doing so well (not included in chart or table above).

TOTAL: 213

FELLOWS: 176

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS: 37

INTERCLASS CANDIDATES (10)

FOREIGN HONORARY MEMBERS (5)

Benjamin F. Cravatt

The Scripps Research Institute

Robert L. Goldstone

Indiana University

Larry L. Jacoby

Washington University in St. Louis

Jay D. Keasling

University of California, Berkeley/LBNL

Gordon D. Logan

Vanderbilt University

Foreign Honorary Members (5)

Edwin Cameron

Constitutional Court of South Africa

Fergus I.M. Craik

Rotman Research Institute/University of Toronto

Menachem Magidor

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Mikhail Borisovich Piotrovsky

State Hermitage Museum/St. Petersburg State University

Shimon Ullman

Weizmann Institute of Science

EMERGING FIELD CANDIDATE (1)

Robert J. Full

University of California, Berkeley