Question: Detailed review on each paragraph, what are the strengths and weaknesses you see?
In "Canadian universities must stop undervaluing female academics" (The Globe & Mail, 2019), author Bessma Momani brings light to the issue of women working at Canadian universities facing a significant gender pay disparity, despite academia's promotion of a socially just climate. Momani argues that in an era marked by the emergence of social causes such as "#MeToo" and "#TimesUp", gender parity in one of its most basic forms, equal and fair salary, has yet to be achieved in academia. Momani's article is a mix of statistics and generalizations. Unfortunately, for a topic that is fairly well documented and generally agreed upon, Momani's arguments are plagued with some assumptions and anecdotal evidence that make the flow of logic hard to follow.
"Canadian universities must stop undervaluing female academics", posted on January 14th, 2019, is an opinion piece written by Bessma Momani. Published to The Globe & Mail, the article describes the gender pay disparities female academics face at Canadian universities. Momani argues that despite shouldering additional work than their male colleagues, such as academic advising, research shows that female academics are paid significantly less amounts. She highlights that studies support the existence of a gendered bias in the methods female professors are funded, recommended, and published, all of which influence their career advancement. Momani further argues that the gender pay disparity at universities does not depend on the social climate in the field of study: despite STEM fields being especially competitive and male dominated, the payroll statistics suggest that the disproportion in STEM is neither greater nor less than those recorded for other academic disciplines. She raises that the gender pay disparity in academia is the third worst, behind the health care and judiciary sectors. She continues that research shows that as a female academic gains experience and moves into more senior positions, the gender pay gap only becomes wider. Momani concludes that though there are efforts being made to equal the playing field, such as implementing policies, male academics still take wealthier leader positions, and when women break into these roles, they are still paid less than their male peers.
Critical Response
Reasoning
Momani's reasoning is presented in an unorganized fashion. She begins the article with claims that she does not back with statistics, such as that female academics do more housework in families and are more likely to take on work that is undervalued at universities. Momani then speaks of a gendered bias that runs in the way female academics are evaluated for academic activities like research funding and publishing. This point does not do much to convey to the reader that women in academia are undervalued in this way, as she does not describe how it is this bias affects the evaluation of female academics, whether it be positive or negative.
Momani goes on to describe an instance in which a theoretical physicist made a misogynistic statement as an example of bias against women within the academic community. She does not quote this statement directly and tells that this statement was made in front of a European university. The reader can assume that this man is European, which does not hold much footing in an argument that applies to Canadian academia. This single statement does not show that bias against women plays a large part in the undervaluing of female academics either, as she does not describe how the academic community reacted to such a statement, further drawing from the argument that many in academia hold this bias.
Momani presents the fact that women working at universities face a gender pay disparity only midway through the article. Although it is indicated in the title that she is arguing that female academics are undervalued, the single most prominent way in which this fact can be shown, which is in salary, is not presented to the reader until she has prefaced it which unbacked claims and anecdote.
Momani goes on to effectively address the counterargument that women in academia make less because there are less women in academia than men. She also addresses the counterargument that they have less experience in their respective fields by proposing that women's pay gap is widened over time, as well as widens as a female academic's role increases in seniority. Momani creates an effective image that policies implemented to counter the gender pay gaps at universities are not working. Conclusively Momani can argue, "Canadian universities still have glass ceilings hindering women from getting into the decision-making positions" (Momani, 2019) with the statistic that the presidents of Canadian universities have been 20% female for the past 30 years.
Fairness
Though Momani can present evidence of a significant gender pay disparity, she uses examples that can be viewed as personal: she speaks of female academics doing more child-rearing work and work on campus that she considers undervalued, both of which she does not back with research statistics. There are also instances in which Momani is not objective in her analysis of the issue. She states, "he wrongly claims, they were unqualified because there is a bias against men" (Momani, 2019) when describing a physicist's speech, without directly quoting him. Another instance of this is where she says, "men are seen as natural leaders and women only providing a supporting role to them" (Momani, 2019).
Assumptions:
Momani makes a couple of assumptions that, however logical, detract from her argument. Momani states that female academics, "shoulder more child-rearing responsibilities in their families" (Momani, 2019). Momani assumes that women in academia often have children and are taking on the role of primary caregiver in their household. She does not consider the possibility that female academics are dividing their child-rearing responsibilities with their partners. Momani goes on to imply that women in academia are more likely than their male peers to take on additional work that is underappreciated. She states, "the type of work they're expected to do on campus (such as taking on advising roles) is undervalued" (Momani, 2019). Because she does not back this statement with statistics as to how many female academics in contrast to male academics perform work such as advising, or which work it is male academics are expected to do on campus, this statement is unreliable. Another instance of the author making assumptions is where she claims, "[t]he mantra in discussions about workplace equity is that we will eventually, and soon, get to the point of gender pay equity; it is just a matter of time" (Momani, 2019). Momani contradicts this statement later in the article by mentioning that universities are attempting to implement policies and methods of reducing the gender pay gap, which goes to show that they are supposedly actively attempting to reach gender pay equity.
Ultimately, Momani in "Canadian universities must stop undervaluing female academics" (The Globe & Mail, 2019) is able to argue that female academics are underpaid with sufficient evidence, but she struggles to create a coherent narrative in the way she structures her argument. Momani's article lacks a driving reason as to why Canadian universities would be undervaluing female academics because she performs only a shallow analysis of contributing factors. Without this driving reason, her argument presents unsubstantiated claims of bias without any clear ties to factual statements she makes later into the article.