Deborah L. Rhode

Former Duke & Wellesley President, Nannerl Keohane, offers candid reflections on life, leadership, and the promising future of higher education with Frank Shushok

11 ABOUT CAMPUS / JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2017 THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ABOUT women in higher education is upbeat. Women are moving up, barriers are coming down, and full equality is just around the corner. Moreover, many people believe that the leadership pipeline will take care of any remaining inequities. We question these conclusions and offer a more sober assessment of the status of women in higher education, especially women in positions of leadership. Yet while our focus is on women in higher education, whatever we have to say about this particular pipeline applies equally to the professions more generally. The theory is that over time, a larger number of women on lower rungs of organizational hierarchies will yield a larger number of women on higher ones. This presumes, first, that since women and men have similar qualifications, once women are in the system, they will ascend to the top at a rate similar to that of men. It presumes, second, an absence of gender bias—namely, that no gender stereotypes will impede women ’ s progress. The pipeline presumes, third, that in spite of the differences between genders, organizational systems and structures work as well for women as they do for men. Finally, it presumes patience—that women ’ s equal representation at the top is simply a matter of time. The trouble is that the pipeline is a pipe dream. Since the theory achieved currency more than 30 years ago, the number of women in positions of leadership and management has remained dauntingly and depressingly low. Although the figures change slightly from year to year, in 2016 women held a mere four percent of Fortune 500 CEO and Fortune 1000 positions. Moreover, as researchers at Catalyst and elsewhere confirm, women ’ s representation is strikingly low not only at the highest levels but also at those immediately below. Women hold less than 15 percent of executive officer positions at Fortune 500 companies—and one quarter of these companies have no women serving in these positions at all. Women as board members fare only slightly better, constituting about 16 percent of corporate boards. Additionally, for the last few years, these numbers have remained stagnant or inched up only slightly, as have the numbers of American women who are high earners—in the US, women hold just 8 percent of the top earning jobs. Women at the Top: The Pipeline as Pipe Dream Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode question the conventional belief that the “leadership pipeline” of women coming up through the ranks will solve gender inequity at all levels. They recommend the creation of rigorous, significant leadership curricula focused on women and leadership to create future women leaders.

Reforming American Legal Education and Legal Practice: Rethinking Licensing Structures and the Role of Nonlawyers in Delivering and Financing Legal Services

These are challenging times for the American bar. ‘Crisis’ is a term that comes readily to mind for many observers. Yet if, as the cliché goes, crisis creates opportunities, it is by no means clear whether the profession is willing to take advantage of them. One of the most prominent missed opportunities is the American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics 20/20. In 2009, the ABA’s president created the Commission to recommend modifications in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct and related policies in light of technology and globalisation. In making its assessment, the Commission was to follow three principles: ‘protecting the public; preserving the core values of the profession; and maintaining a strong, independent, and self-regulated profession’. As was the case in prior regulatory initiatives, the Commission was constrained by its fundamentally conservative mission—preserve and maintain—and by a ratification process ill suited to innovation or reform. Proposed modifications required approval by the ABA House of Delegates and then by state supreme courts after review by state bar associations. All of these groups are controlled by lawyers or former lawyers who, by training and disposition, tend to resist change. That resistance is particularly intense when the profession’s

The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy.@@@Young, Poor, and Pregnant: The Psychology of Teenage Motherhood.

This is a collection of papers from various disciplines on aspects of teenage pregnancy; it is the product of a conference sponsored by the Institute for Research on Women and Gender held at Stanford University in April 1989. The geographical focus of the papers is on both the United Kingdom and the United States. In Part 1 the authors examine the cultural context of teenage pregnancy in the two countries. Part 2 looks at the choices available to pregnant adolescents. Part 3 examines the situation concerning adolescent fathers. The concluding Part 4 considers social policy implications.